3 ms·
I’m perplexed by this article’s argument, which seems to be that Graeber is somehow betraying “anarchism” by theorizing the state as ill-defined or non-monolith
by lsy 3y ago
I’m perplexed by this article’s argument, which seems to be that Graeber is somehow betraying “anarchism” by theorizing the state as ill-defined or non-monolithic, or questioning the concept of “inequality”. All of these arguments seem totally compatible with anarchism, especially the type of modernism-questioning anarchism that would stem from anthropology. To me it feels like the author is coming from an overly rigid or subcultural definition of the term that takes any straying outside its bounds as indication of closet liberal behavior or a radical shift in thought. While it’s possible that his late works were cryptically hinting at a new angle, the inconsistencies in his writing and behavior are also adequately explained by Graeber being merely human and not the ideal paragon of anarchist ideology.
- rendall 3y agoMy reading is that these were examples to illustrate, and not arguments for, Graeber's change of heart.
- camillomiller 3y agoI agree, and I’m also struggling to understand the strong need for labeling. For how I know Graeber, the fact that he definitely changed his views over time is nothing but a positive. If someone in Academia isn’t willing to challenge their views from 10 years prior that’s a pretty bad sign about that person’s thinking and intellectual work. This reeks a bit of that. It feels like this author values the frameworks more than the concepts.
- namaria 3y agoDogmatism and sectarianism are rife in political theory and in my view help explain why there hasn't been a successful way to challenge the excessive accumulation of wealth and political power that seems to insist on prevailing over any power structure designed to moderate it.
- mypastself 3y agoMoreover, the fact that his later stances seem to ridicule “himself and the Occupy movement” doesn’t make them incompatible with anarchism. It means he reconsidered his earlier beliefs.
- SnazzyJeff 3y ago> All of these arguments seem totally compatible with anarchism, especially the type of modernism-questioning anarchism that would stem from anthropology. Given that virtually all political theories stem from the structuralist assumptions being questioned, I'm not sure where that leaves us with respect to political labels. Personally I read Graeber because he's persuasive and argues well. He represents his own political views far more genuinely and forthrightly than the vast majority of people who put a lot of weight in labeling per se.