Main Article Content
Dominant histories of anarchism rely on a historical framework that ill fits anarchism. Mainstream anarchist historiography is not only blind to non-Western elements of historical anarchism, it also misses the very nature of fin de siècle world radicalism and the contexts in which activists and movements flourished. Instead of being interested in the network of (anarchist) radicalism (worldwide), political historiography has built a linear narrative which begins from a particular geographical and cultural framework, driven by the great ideas of a few father figures and marked by decisive moments that subsequently frame the historical compartmentalization of the past. Today, colonialism/anti-colonialism and imperialism/anti-imperialism both hold a secondary place in contemporary anarchist studies. This is strange considering the importance of these issues in world political history. And the neglect allows us to speculate on the ways in which the priorities might change if Eurocentric anarchist histories were challenged. This piece aims to discuss Eurocentrism imposed uopn the anarchist past in the form of histories of anarchism. What would be the consequences of one such attempt and how can we reimagine the anarchist past after such a critique?
Peer Reviewed Articles
Affinities is anti-copyright. We encourage people to use anything they find here in any way they please -- take risks, contaminate the global mindstream, get themselves in trouble. It's out of our hands (we, the editors, and you, the writer) once it's on the site. That's what it means to 'publish', no?