What do you think?
Rate this book
Lo sguardo anarchico
Con il peculiare sguardo anarchico che gli è proprio, Colin Ward, per oltre mezzo secolo, ha guardato alla società in modo non convenzionale cercando - negli interstizi, nelle crepe, negli spazi lasciati liberi dalle istituzioni - le espressioni altrimenti poco visibili di quell'inesauribile resistenza popolare all'omologazione basata su una creatività solidale e su un uso alternativo dello spazio e delle risorse. Un uso alternativo ai prevalenti modelli gerarchici e burocratici, così come all'assistenzialismo e alla mercificazione. Un uso comunitario e tendenzialmente egualitario e libertario in cui il suo occhio - come racconta in questa intensa conversazione con l'amico Goodway - vede il seme di un'anarchia reale. Un'anarchia cioè che è già, per lo meno potenzialmente, nel fare: non solo nelle cose che vengono fatte ma anche nel modo in cui vengono fatte. Un fare che non risponde più a grandi sogni palingenetici ma a reali bisogni di abitazione, lavoro, gioco, consumo, trasporto…
- GenresNonfictionPolitics
240 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
6 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
About the author
Colin Ward
64 books90 followersColin Ward was born in Wanstead, Essex. He became an anarchist while in the British Army during World War II. As a subscriber to War Commentary, the war-time equivalent of Freedom, he was called in 1945 from Orkney, where he was serving, to give evidence at the London trial of the editors for publishing an article allegedly intended to seduce soldiers from their duty or allegiance. Ward robustly repudiated any seduction, but the three editors (Philip Sansom, Vernon Richards and John Hewetson) were convicted and sentenced to nine months imprisonment.
He was an editor of the British anarchist newspaper Freedom from 1947 to 1960, and the founder and editor of the monthly libertarian journal Anarchy from 1961 to 1970.
From 1952 to 1961, Ward worked as an architect. In 1971, he became the Education Officer for the Town and Country Planning Association. He published widely on education, architecture and town planning. His most influential book was The Child In The City (1978), about children's street culture.
In 2001, Colin Ward was made an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.
Most of Ward's works deal with the issue of rural housing and the problems of overpopulation and planning regulations in Britain to which he proposes anarchistic solutions. He is a keen admirer of architect Walter Segal who set up a ‘build it yourself’ system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal’s help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of ‘build it yourself’ having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, ‘I don't believe in just letting it rip, the rich get away with murder when that happens. But I do want the planning system to be flexible enough to give homeless people a chance’. In his book Cotters and Squatters, Ward describes the historical development of informal customs to appropriate land for housing which frequently grew up in opposition to legally constituted systems of land ownership. Ward describes folkways in many cultures which parallel the Welsh tradition of the Tŷ unnos or 'one night house' erected on common land.
Ward includes a passage from one of his anarchist forebears, Peter Kropotkin, who said of the empty and overgrown landscape of Surrey and Sussex at the end of the 19th century, ‘in every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.’ Ward himself goes on to observe: ‘Precisely a century after this account was written, the fields were empty again. Fifty years of subsidies had made the owners of arable land millionaires through mechanised cultivation and, with a crisis of over-production; the European Community was rewarding them for growing no crops on part of their land. However, opportunities for the homeless poor were fewer than ever in history. The grown-up children of local families can’t get on the housing ladder’. Wards solution is that ‘there should be some place in every parish where it's possible for people to build their own homes, and they should be allowed to do it a bit at a time, starting in a simple way and improving the structure as they go along. The idea that a house should be completed in one go before you can get planning permission and a mortgage is ridiculous. Look at the houses in this village. Many of them have developed their character over centuries - a bit of medieval at the back, with Tudor and Georgian add-ons.’
Ward’s anarchist philosophy is the idea of removing authoritarian forms of social organisation and replacing them with self-managed, non-hierarchical forms of organisation. This form of federalism was put forward in part by Kropotkin and Proudhon and is based upon the principle that as Ward puts it- ‘in small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop’
He was an editor of the British anarchist newspaper Freedom from 1947 to 1960, and the founder and editor of the monthly libertarian journal Anarchy from 1961 to 1970.
From 1952 to 1961, Ward worked as an architect. In 1971, he became the Education Officer for the Town and Country Planning Association. He published widely on education, architecture and town planning. His most influential book was The Child In The City (1978), about children's street culture.
In 2001, Colin Ward was made an Honorary Doctor of Philosophy at Anglia Ruskin University.
Most of Ward's works deal with the issue of rural housing and the problems of overpopulation and planning regulations in Britain to which he proposes anarchistic solutions. He is a keen admirer of architect Walter Segal who set up a ‘build it yourself’ system in Lewisham meaning that land that was too small or difficult to build on conventionally was given to people who with Segal’s help would build their own homes. Ward is very keen on the idea of ‘build it yourself’ having said in response to the proposition of removing all planning laws, ‘I don't believe in just letting it rip, the rich get away with murder when that happens. But I do want the planning system to be flexible enough to give homeless people a chance’. In his book Cotters and Squatters, Ward describes the historical development of informal customs to appropriate land for housing which frequently grew up in opposition to legally constituted systems of land ownership. Ward describes folkways in many cultures which parallel the Welsh tradition of the Tŷ unnos or 'one night house' erected on common land.
Ward includes a passage from one of his anarchist forebears, Peter Kropotkin, who said of the empty and overgrown landscape of Surrey and Sussex at the end of the 19th century, ‘in every direction I see abandoned cottages and orchards going to ruin, a whole population has disappeared.’ Ward himself goes on to observe: ‘Precisely a century after this account was written, the fields were empty again. Fifty years of subsidies had made the owners of arable land millionaires through mechanised cultivation and, with a crisis of over-production; the European Community was rewarding them for growing no crops on part of their land. However, opportunities for the homeless poor were fewer than ever in history. The grown-up children of local families can’t get on the housing ladder’. Wards solution is that ‘there should be some place in every parish where it's possible for people to build their own homes, and they should be allowed to do it a bit at a time, starting in a simple way and improving the structure as they go along. The idea that a house should be completed in one go before you can get planning permission and a mortgage is ridiculous. Look at the houses in this village. Many of them have developed their character over centuries - a bit of medieval at the back, with Tudor and Georgian add-ons.’
Ward’s anarchist philosophy is the idea of removing authoritarian forms of social organisation and replacing them with self-managed, non-hierarchical forms of organisation. This form of federalism was put forward in part by Kropotkin and Proudhon and is based upon the principle that as Ward puts it- ‘in small face-to-face groups, the bureaucratising and hierarchical tendencies inherent in organisations have least opportunity to develop’
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
January 10, 2015
Colin Ward talks to David Goodway. They are not so much “talking anarchy” as they are talking about “talking anarchy,” which is considerably less interesting. Much of the book is Ward discussing people who influenced his thinking and answering questions regarding his writings for various journals.
There are several things I appreciate about Ward: his wish to “break the sound barrier” in order to reach a broad audience; his “concentration on ‘anarchist applications’ or ‘anarchist solutions’ to ‘immediate issues in which people are actually likely to get involved….’” (15) and his scorn for “anarchists’ obsession with the history, whether glorious or infamous, of their tradition” (19). I also appreciate his emphasis on anarchism’s importance insofar as it is a theory of organization.
I have many complaints about Ward and this book. Regarding the aforementioned “immediate issues,” he tends to state positions without discussing them, let alone sufficiently arguing or supporting them. Reading him, one does not gain new insight on those issues. Goodway’s questions and comments do not do much to encourage him to answer otherwise.
In the Introduction, Goodway summarizes a centrally important tenet of Ward’s: social transformation will not occur through a dramatic revolution, “but rather a prolonged situation of dual power in the age-old struggle between authoritarian and libertarian tendencies, with outright victory for either tendency most improbable” (13).
The former part of that quote is obvious enough without need of mention: dramatic revolution is not nigh upon us in the U.S. But the latter part of that quote is an important acknowledgement: that anarchism is essentially incapable of a majoritarian politics. I appreciate this recognition—it is what sets him apart from anarchists I have encountered who, when pressed to explain the relevance of their politics to most ordinary people, essentially defer to some vague notion of leading by example, and a hope for others to follow, leading to a great number of people to convert their relationships and lifestyles to anarchism. When people give this answer, I tend to think that they aren’t being honest with themselves or are naively and terrifically misguided.
Ward acknowledges that living by example will not lead many to join the cause. His sort of anarchism accepts that it will be limited to the enlightened few. Assuming that anarchism even succeeds at social transformation for the involved minority (which I think is debatable), anarchism amounts to a personal lifestyle project. But I think that other anarchists would contend that anarchism has a greater relevance. However, anarchism ironically has ineffectiveness in common with vanguardist socialist or communist orientations, both of which anarchism is against. This orientation (as well s the latter two) strike me as problematic, because it ultimately adds up to inactivity in face of the reality that most people, “unreached” by the enlightened example, are oppressed and exploited. Worse, leading ideologically-charged minority action, rather than organizing the majority of “ordinary” people and developing their consciousness, is often alienating to the majority. Ward acknowledges this when reflecting on syndicalism, which he identifies as “the only approach compatible with anarchism:” “I have frequently seen the attempts by a militant minority to push minor disputes into an ultimate struggle, inevitably losing majority support and causing ordinary workers to fear militancy” (29).¬ Ward does not provide insight for how anarchism is to be applied to the workplace, arguably the most important site of struggle in society.
Another reason for anarchism’s generally isolated activity (though not discussed much in this book) is anarchists’ tendency to take their commitment to organizing people without coercion--a good thing--to an extreme, by which they fear organizing other people who aren’t already converted. Such an anxiety to not act coercively encourages inactivity or isolation and ultimately, renders anarchists complicit with the miserable existence of the majority. Ward’s likely response to all of this is that he is merely a propagandist (something he reminds the reader many times throughout the book); writing to inspire others to take action. Fair enough, but that makes for rather less interesting reflection for this book.
I’ve found anarchist theory to be revealing for purposes of understanding the role of the state in society. I’ve found anarchist practice to be interesting for purposes of the adaptation of tactics to community organizing. Reading this book does not cause me to consider anarchism compelling for a political identity or lifestyle.
There are several things I appreciate about Ward: his wish to “break the sound barrier” in order to reach a broad audience; his “concentration on ‘anarchist applications’ or ‘anarchist solutions’ to ‘immediate issues in which people are actually likely to get involved….’” (15) and his scorn for “anarchists’ obsession with the history, whether glorious or infamous, of their tradition” (19). I also appreciate his emphasis on anarchism’s importance insofar as it is a theory of organization.
I have many complaints about Ward and this book. Regarding the aforementioned “immediate issues,” he tends to state positions without discussing them, let alone sufficiently arguing or supporting them. Reading him, one does not gain new insight on those issues. Goodway’s questions and comments do not do much to encourage him to answer otherwise.
In the Introduction, Goodway summarizes a centrally important tenet of Ward’s: social transformation will not occur through a dramatic revolution, “but rather a prolonged situation of dual power in the age-old struggle between authoritarian and libertarian tendencies, with outright victory for either tendency most improbable” (13).
The former part of that quote is obvious enough without need of mention: dramatic revolution is not nigh upon us in the U.S. But the latter part of that quote is an important acknowledgement: that anarchism is essentially incapable of a majoritarian politics. I appreciate this recognition—it is what sets him apart from anarchists I have encountered who, when pressed to explain the relevance of their politics to most ordinary people, essentially defer to some vague notion of leading by example, and a hope for others to follow, leading to a great number of people to convert their relationships and lifestyles to anarchism. When people give this answer, I tend to think that they aren’t being honest with themselves or are naively and terrifically misguided.
Ward acknowledges that living by example will not lead many to join the cause. His sort of anarchism accepts that it will be limited to the enlightened few. Assuming that anarchism even succeeds at social transformation for the involved minority (which I think is debatable), anarchism amounts to a personal lifestyle project. But I think that other anarchists would contend that anarchism has a greater relevance. However, anarchism ironically has ineffectiveness in common with vanguardist socialist or communist orientations, both of which anarchism is against. This orientation (as well s the latter two) strike me as problematic, because it ultimately adds up to inactivity in face of the reality that most people, “unreached” by the enlightened example, are oppressed and exploited. Worse, leading ideologically-charged minority action, rather than organizing the majority of “ordinary” people and developing their consciousness, is often alienating to the majority. Ward acknowledges this when reflecting on syndicalism, which he identifies as “the only approach compatible with anarchism:” “I have frequently seen the attempts by a militant minority to push minor disputes into an ultimate struggle, inevitably losing majority support and causing ordinary workers to fear militancy” (29).¬ Ward does not provide insight for how anarchism is to be applied to the workplace, arguably the most important site of struggle in society.
Another reason for anarchism’s generally isolated activity (though not discussed much in this book) is anarchists’ tendency to take their commitment to organizing people without coercion--a good thing--to an extreme, by which they fear organizing other people who aren’t already converted. Such an anxiety to not act coercively encourages inactivity or isolation and ultimately, renders anarchists complicit with the miserable existence of the majority. Ward’s likely response to all of this is that he is merely a propagandist (something he reminds the reader many times throughout the book); writing to inspire others to take action. Fair enough, but that makes for rather less interesting reflection for this book.
I’ve found anarchist theory to be revealing for purposes of understanding the role of the state in society. I’ve found anarchist practice to be interesting for purposes of the adaptation of tactics to community organizing. Reading this book does not cause me to consider anarchism compelling for a political identity or lifestyle.
November 30, 2025
3.1
It was fine I guess, found it interesting in parts, took it as a long interview which provided me with a reference list for further reading, definitely interested to explore more in depth books by Colin Ward and am interested in his approach or style to anarchism and organisation.
It was fine I guess, found it interesting in parts, took it as a long interview which provided me with a reference list for further reading, definitely interested to explore more in depth books by Colin Ward and am interested in his approach or style to anarchism and organisation.
April 7, 2019
A little redundant in spots but overall a good read. Definitely the right place to start if you're unfamiliar with Colin Ward.
October 14, 2025
kind of boring
November 9, 2014
I should say that I read this book having heard of Colin Ward but really knowing who he was. Especially not that he was one of the greatest Anarchist thinkers of the century. Talking Anarchy is a conversation between David Goodway and Colin Ward that was conducted though correspondence over the course of several years without the two ever having met. As Goodway himself says in the introduction, it's a testament to the fluidity of Talking Anarchy and (I think) Goodway's ability to direct a conversation that it's shocking to find out the two never actually sat in the same room together and had this conversation.
Talking Anarchy reads mostly like an autobiography of Colin Ward's life, his beginnings at a child, serving in the military, being introduced to Anarchism, working as an architect, editing the publication Anarchy for several years, his many publications (and ideas for publications) over the years, his perspective on what "type" of anarchism he prefers (such as Kropotkin's), and who the people are who have influenced him the most (whether they are anarchists themselves or simply people he's met and collaborated with over the years). There is not really much informational stuff or much new to add in this book for someone wanting some perspective on anarchism, and no protracted discussions on anarchist events or theories per se, but it is surprising how readable this all is anyway.
If nothing else, Talking Anarchy makes one curious as to Ward's writing and his contributions to Anarchism over the years. I for one, am looking forward to getting to know the man better through his books.
Talking Anarchy reads mostly like an autobiography of Colin Ward's life, his beginnings at a child, serving in the military, being introduced to Anarchism, working as an architect, editing the publication Anarchy for several years, his many publications (and ideas for publications) over the years, his perspective on what "type" of anarchism he prefers (such as Kropotkin's), and who the people are who have influenced him the most (whether they are anarchists themselves or simply people he's met and collaborated with over the years). There is not really much informational stuff or much new to add in this book for someone wanting some perspective on anarchism, and no protracted discussions on anarchist events or theories per se, but it is surprising how readable this all is anyway.
If nothing else, Talking Anarchy makes one curious as to Ward's writing and his contributions to Anarchism over the years. I for one, am looking forward to getting to know the man better through his books.
January 3, 2009
A conversation between David Goodway (the editor) and British anarchist-propogandist/education-reformer/architect/housing advocate Colin Ward. The interview ranges through numerous topics on which Ward's writings are of interest, and dwells for a long time on his involvement with several famous anarchist jounrals, including "Autonomy", which he himself edited for 10 years.
Ward's ideas on anarchism haven't given me any insights in particular, but his writings and ideas on numerous other fields from an anarchist's perspective are very interesting. In particular, he has been interested in instances of decentralized/diffused planning structures currently in place, for instance the European rail system (see his book "Anarchy in Action"). Such instances of an-archal organization in everyday life can provide valuable lessons, Ward argues.
This book has mostly amped me to obtain copies of his writings on squatting, city planning, housing, and education.
Ward's ideas on anarchism haven't given me any insights in particular, but his writings and ideas on numerous other fields from an anarchist's perspective are very interesting. In particular, he has been interested in instances of decentralized/diffused planning structures currently in place, for instance the European rail system (see his book "Anarchy in Action"). Such instances of an-archal organization in everyday life can provide valuable lessons, Ward argues.
This book has mostly amped me to obtain copies of his writings on squatting, city planning, housing, and education.
December 3, 2007
Just a loooonnnnggg interveiw with Colin Ward about his ideas (anarchism, architecture, education among others), his part in the UK anarchist movement, and the movement as a whole - great for reading up on anarchist history (with lots of nice anecdotes about Freedom etc..) but readers should just drop in in the bits that interest them/use it as a reference, cos otherwise it can drag a bit (despite the interveiw style, that actually makes it very accesible)
December 5, 2015
A superficial look into the ideas and influences of Colin Ward in an interview with David Goodway.
However, the book lacks a coherent theme and the questions are haphazard and unstructured which can make the book a bit long-winding.
However, the book lacks a coherent theme and the questions are haphazard and unstructured which can make the book a bit long-winding.
February 8, 2015
One of the most uninteresting styles of writing is the "ask a question, transcribe a long winded answer without context" format. I had great expectations...
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews