Talk:Post-anarchism

Discussion

Ok what is meant by the rejection of the repressive hypothesis? surely such an emphasis on focault would recognize this discourse?

--Foucault, as one example, traced the history of sexuality and argued that we typically assume that our sexuality has been repressed. To think in these terms suggests that power is purely repression and serves no creative role. The political implications are amazing. see this page for a simple explanation: http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/histofsex/section1.html

--HEY HEY HEY! somehow the article got edited a bunch recently, I can't figure out who did it, but I think it is way more coherent, more quotations, and delves deeper into what post-anarchism is in a very understandable fashion, thanks!!!! - free2resist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.90.164 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

There is at least one essay, Cohn and Wilbur: "What's Wrong With Postanarchism?" dealing with some of the shortcomings of the approach. Libertatia 21:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Would like to see the link to the institute for anarchist studies removed as one can not find anything about post-anarchism on their website any longer. There was a short-lived raging debate, however the site has lost all traces of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.227.229 (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the article should include anarchist criticisms of post-structualist/modern theory, in particular its focus on issues of identity at the expense of an analysis of the state/economy (Bookchin, Chomsky, Zerzan)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimCMalone (talk • contribs) 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Post-Anarchism Reader

Sureyyya Evren, and not Jason Adams, is the co-editor of the post-anarchism Reader.

• I moved this unsigned post from the top of the page. Zazaban (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was the post-anarchism reader section removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.165.239 (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

I propose removing the external links to the "Post Anarchist Clearinghouse" and "The Post Anarchist Reader". The former links to a page called "Philosophy Academics and Social Meaning" that, while certainly bearing a sexy title, has nothing on post-structuralist anarchism as far as I can tell; and the latter directs to an essentially blank page which promises to be the "Future Site of The Post Anarchist Reader", or something to that effect. I'll wait a few days, and if no one objects, remove those two links.RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I will update to the proper post anarchist clearinghouse. The domain must have been sold at some point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.186.22 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!RolandTheHeadlessThompsonGunner (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing tag

Can someone explain why this article is flagged as needing copy editing? It seems rather well written to me. I can understand if the complaint is that the tone renders it a little inaccessible, but given the subject matter, I don't think accessibility is going to be easily achieved...—Zujine|talk 05:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

On my many requests for clean up and references

It is clear that global overviews of this subject should be brought to support many affirmations here and not just mentions of texts of specific authors associated with the tendency who do not deal with "post-anarchism" as a whole. Also a clarification on the differences between "post-anarchism", "post-modern anarchism" and "post-structuralist" anarchism will have to be provided since individual books in the bibliography in this article deal with one of these concepts. Perhaps this text might provide this global overview that is needed here since one can assume that it includes an introduction of the many writings and authors included in this compilation: Rousselle, Duane and Evren, Süreyyya (eds) Post-Anarchism: A Reader. London: Pluto Press. (2011).

It seems to me that the section "background" in the beginning might need to be replaced by something dealing with definitional issues as well as the differentiations mentioned before. The section called "background" might rather be replaced by one called something similar to "main themes" in order to show the main debates and issues dealt with within post-anarchism as a whole. This in order to provide readers a good idea of what post-anarchism is about and not just a context since we are clearly dealing here with a tendency of thought with a short and recent history.

On the section "post-anarchism and space" it clearly deals with a single subject dealt only by one single author and it mainly just provides excessive citations of a single text. One cannot see that the subject of "space" is an important discussion of post-anarchism as a whole in order to merit an entire section of this article if it is only of interest of one author.

All the editions and requests made here are in good faith and I am ready to discuss issues related to this article which i will be checking when I have the time.--Eduen (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources

But wait just a minute. May, Day, Newman and Call sounds more like a law firm than a revolution.
— Call, Lewis (2010). "Editorial – Post-Anarchism Today". Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (1). ISSN 1923-5615.

If we were to strip the self-commentary coming from these four sources, what would be left? What kind of overview secondary source commentary on the topic exists from authors other than these four? czar 17:58, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• A preliminary answer to my own question before I forget: This Franks source is okay and it looks like book reviews of May, Day, Newman, and Call's works will be promising as well. Franks doesn't have an outright definition of postanarchism but offers some explanation of its etymology and a typology of postanarchist angles.

Franks, Benjamin (June 2007). "Postanarchism: A Critical Assessment". Journal of Political Ideologies. 12 (2): 127–145. doi:10.1080/13569310701284985. ISSN 1356-9317.

czar 02:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bibliography czar 05:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)