What do you think?
Rate this book
Postmodern Anarchism
Delving into the anarchist writings of Nietzsche, Foucault, and Baudrillard, and exploring the cyberpunk fiction of William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, theorist Lewis Call examines the new philosophical current where anarchism meets postmodernism. This theoretical stream moves beyond anarchism's conventional attacks on capital and the state to criticize those forms of rationality, consciousness, and language that implicitly underwrite all economic and political power. Call argues that postmodernism's timely influence updates anarchism, making it relevant to the political culture of the new millennium.
- GenresPhilosophyPolitics
165 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2003
105 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 28, 2011
If I could give half stars this one would be getting 1.5. Where to begin with the failures of this one. On its face its a worthy endeavor, eliciting a kind of neo-anarchism for a post-industrial, post-modern world. This is not the way to go about such an endeavor though. It is rote with hypocrisy, failed interpretations of "white male bourgeois ideology", and so much more. As I say, the premise is good, and there are flashes of an inspirational critique here, but its more in the details then the main points as I see it.
The book has manifesto-like endeavors, but it reads like the same "white male bourgeois ideology" it claims to be overcoming. The introduction states the premise but immediately devolves into weak conceptual framing and just sophomoric use of reason (again which it claims to be rejecting). For instance the first tool Call brings out is a "matrix" that is intended to be read as a rhizome of streams of thought that help constitute this concept of postmodern anarchism. But this "matrix" is basically a bunch of philosophers written on a piece of papers with lines drawn between them. Whats more is many of these thinkers are hardly even mentioned again. Beyond this a seemingly cursory understanding of the information systems he brings up is evident from his idle musings of them such as how the internet works, or by essentially name-dropping IRC and Usenet.
The structure of the book follows almost exactly the structure his mentor Mark Poster used in his Mode of Information book (reviewed that one here) where a post-modern thinker whose ideas support his thesis are over-analyzed to demonstrate this. For Call, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillad, and cyberpunk authors Gibson and Sterling are critiqued to help support his thesis. Through the process of this critique, which the book is basically nothing but, any attempt at formulating a prescriptive ideology is lost. You cannot critique other thinkers in a context that is not even formulated yet.
I could talk about the endless failures of critique that this book brings up such as the hypocrisy of chiding Rorty for selectively reading Nietzsche in a liberal-humanist context to support his ideas, but then that is what he does for his own anarchist-anti-humanist context which Call himself admits is problematic. I could point out the the same hypocrisy attributed to Foucault. There are innumerable faults here, but I my biggest problem his is monolithic proclamation of "post-modern" anarchism as being anti-humanist and anti-rationalist. On top of all this he critiques novelists of science fiction (science is essentially an enemy of post-modern anarchism since its statist and rationalist steeped in the liberal tradition, unless of course we are talking about the post-modern concept of nomad science...), and I will let that sink in, because they write about the unreality of the future which is the only place Call's revolution of post-modern anarchism can be achieved. Besides the idea to use actual forms of these ideas such as hacktivists and the like which have been around for decades, it doesnt fit in with his WMBI critique system so he uses novelists instead. Fine, but the problem I have with the very notion of cyberspace being the only place his revolution can take place is that it means the state and power structures have already won reality so you are retreating to a place where you are even less likely to have power in the end despite all the high-minded idealism of post-modern thinkers to back you up.
Call builds a nihilistic, anti-rationalist anarchism he labels post-modern anarchism on the backs of other writers who would be turning in their grave if they knew what their words were being used for. Most of these thinkers rejected notions of anarchism in any formulation, but that doesnt stop Call from co-opting them for his purposes. This book is a failure on so many levels its just not worth reading. I hope someone else attempts this again with perhaps a more suitable style and structure. But this book is hypocritical, cognitively dissonant, and confused on so many levels its problematic beyond repair; I hope Call is at least referenced in future works in the few places he made sense and got it right.
The book has manifesto-like endeavors, but it reads like the same "white male bourgeois ideology" it claims to be overcoming. The introduction states the premise but immediately devolves into weak conceptual framing and just sophomoric use of reason (again which it claims to be rejecting). For instance the first tool Call brings out is a "matrix" that is intended to be read as a rhizome of streams of thought that help constitute this concept of postmodern anarchism. But this "matrix" is basically a bunch of philosophers written on a piece of papers with lines drawn between them. Whats more is many of these thinkers are hardly even mentioned again. Beyond this a seemingly cursory understanding of the information systems he brings up is evident from his idle musings of them such as how the internet works, or by essentially name-dropping IRC and Usenet.
The structure of the book follows almost exactly the structure his mentor Mark Poster used in his Mode of Information book (reviewed that one here) where a post-modern thinker whose ideas support his thesis are over-analyzed to demonstrate this. For Call, Nietzsche, Foucault, Baudrillad, and cyberpunk authors Gibson and Sterling are critiqued to help support his thesis. Through the process of this critique, which the book is basically nothing but, any attempt at formulating a prescriptive ideology is lost. You cannot critique other thinkers in a context that is not even formulated yet.
I could talk about the endless failures of critique that this book brings up such as the hypocrisy of chiding Rorty for selectively reading Nietzsche in a liberal-humanist context to support his ideas, but then that is what he does for his own anarchist-anti-humanist context which Call himself admits is problematic. I could point out the the same hypocrisy attributed to Foucault. There are innumerable faults here, but I my biggest problem his is monolithic proclamation of "post-modern" anarchism as being anti-humanist and anti-rationalist. On top of all this he critiques novelists of science fiction (science is essentially an enemy of post-modern anarchism since its statist and rationalist steeped in the liberal tradition, unless of course we are talking about the post-modern concept of nomad science...), and I will let that sink in, because they write about the unreality of the future which is the only place Call's revolution of post-modern anarchism can be achieved. Besides the idea to use actual forms of these ideas such as hacktivists and the like which have been around for decades, it doesnt fit in with his WMBI critique system so he uses novelists instead. Fine, but the problem I have with the very notion of cyberspace being the only place his revolution can take place is that it means the state and power structures have already won reality so you are retreating to a place where you are even less likely to have power in the end despite all the high-minded idealism of post-modern thinkers to back you up.
Call builds a nihilistic, anti-rationalist anarchism he labels post-modern anarchism on the backs of other writers who would be turning in their grave if they knew what their words were being used for. Most of these thinkers rejected notions of anarchism in any formulation, but that doesnt stop Call from co-opting them for his purposes. This book is a failure on so many levels its just not worth reading. I hope someone else attempts this again with perhaps a more suitable style and structure. But this book is hypocritical, cognitively dissonant, and confused on so many levels its problematic beyond repair; I hope Call is at least referenced in future works in the few places he made sense and got it right.
July 9, 2010
more practical than the others - thank God
Baudrillard's Gift's the main contribution, although I question its revolutionary potential
interesting thought of explicitly separating academic high theorizing, to be translated by popular culture to the masses
Baudrillard's Gift's the main contribution, although I question its revolutionary potential
interesting thought of explicitly separating academic high theorizing, to be translated by popular culture to the masses
April 18, 2024
One of the best and most clear introductions to poststructuralism/postmodernism, especially noteworthy if you are looking for a simple explanation of Baudrillard's thought. A masterpiece.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews