Criticism on Post.docx

8/14/2019 Criticism on Post.docx

1/5

Assignment -2. Criticism on Post-Anarchism

Student: Nayab Maqsood10U0417.

Post Anarchism

Neither the normalization of anarchism nor the depoliticization of theory! was the rallying cry

for the post-anarchist position (Adams, 2003).

Post-anarchism began with the assumption that power is a pervasive, phenomenon which is both

creative and destructive in its operation. As a result, resistance was thought to benefit from a

disposal of the reactive, unoriginal, attitude of resentment; the assumption was that, following

Newman, there can be no external enemy for us to define ourselves in opposition to and vent

our anger on .., rather than having an external enemy, on opposition to which ones political

identity is formed, we must work on [the other within] ourselves.

Post anarchism was therefore a reaction to the premises of an anarchism which positioned itself

against any single (or series of) place(s) from which power unidirectional emanates. To define

post-anarchism it is important to justify the definition ofanarchism; an attitude of hostility in theface of all forms of representation, the least of which may be political or conceptual; or, as an

assemblage of often contradictory attitudes held that interrogates representations along a variety

of nodal points. Traditional anarchism can now be summarized as a specific attitudinal

assemblage held in tendency, among others, within the larger anarchist assemblage, which,

according to the post-anarchist critique, holds a number of problematic assumptions. The most

significant of these assumptions is that power derives from a particular place (the State), is an

objective phenomenon, and emanates outward to repress an otherwise creative human essence.

Post-anarchism can be understood as the result of a paradigm shift within anarchist theory itself


2/5

which emerged somewhere after the middle of the century and is associated with the failed/lost

social movements of the time. Far from a mere overnight transformation of politics and far from

a wholesale rejection of all anarchist theory in the past, post-anarchism is simply another term

for what has always already been going on within the anarchist movement. Post-anarchist theory

has many implications for social and political space and, seeing as space is always political,

seriously considers the question of space for radical politics and movements today. Much post

anarchist theory is centered around an extensive critique of hegemony and the neoliberal

societies of control. The logic of hegemony contains all conceptions of freedom and justice

narrowly within the confines of the state, creating a political climate in which radical notions of

justice are seen as a threat to the very existence of society, perpetuating the liberal ideological

myth that unity requires homogeneity. Post anarchism conceives of a political space which is

indeterminate, contingent and heterogeneousa space whose lines and contours are un-

decidable and therefore contestable. Saul Newman defines this post anarchist conception of

political space as a space of becoming.If we see current conceptions and arrangements of

space as frameworks for dominant political and economic interests, post anarchist theory

explores the ways in which this hegemonic space is challenged, contested and reconfigured, as

well as the fantasies and desires invested in political spaces and looks to the occupation of space

as a means to prefigure and create autonomous alternatives.

When related to Pakistan, post-anarchism is a name given *to* all schools of thought that are of

the contemporary moment. It is a way of describing what anarchism has become for us today. Of

course classical anarchisms live on in the present, we can never get rid of our histories.In

Pakistan post-anarchism is taking up its toll considering In the once vacant symbolic place left

by the collapse of the state socialist systems, we have seen the emergence of a new radical spatial


3/5

imaginary defined not so much by institutions and political parties, but by social movements

which create, in their practices, discourses and modes of action, new political, social and

economic spaces, new imaginaries. What shapes this alternative political space is, I would argue,

the idea of autonomy. Rather than seeking to take over state power, or to participate in state

institutions at the level of parliamentary politics, many contemporary actors and movements

endeavour to create autonomous spaces, social practices and relations, whether through the

permanent or temporary occupation of physical spacessquats, community centres and

cooperatives, workplace occupations, mass demonstrations and convergences or through the

experimentation with practices such decentralized decision-making, direct action or even

alternative forms of economic exchange, which are not striated, conditioned or captured by

statist and capitalist modes of organization. This new form of politics demands a certain

reconsideration of anarchism. I would like to understand anarchismor as I conceive of it, post-

anarchismas a new way of thinking about the politics of space and planning, one that I see as

becoming more relevant today.


4/5

Assignment1

Student- Nayab Maqsood10U0417

Q) How would the realists have felt about the recent war in Iraq? Was it justified by

realism standards?

Realismtakes on various meanings, depending on the context in which the term is used and is

always related to some form of reality. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been one of the most

important events in the recent history. Thus, having an understanding of this event from different

perspectives has a paramount significance. To understand the perspective of the war in Iraq from

the realists point of view we first need to amplify the six factors of realism studied in class; there

are objective laws that have roots in human nature and they govern the politics. As the human

nature has not changed since the early history of humankind, these laws do not change, the

concept of interest that is defined in terms of power is the main signpost that helps understand

the international politics. Statesmen (should) always behave in a way that is necessitated by the

benefit of their country, not by their motives or ideological preferences, the concept of interest

that is defined as power is objective and universally valid but the meaning is not fixed, which

indicates the power of states may change in time in a way that is determined by the environment

thus, the contemporary world politics can be transformed. There are universal moral principles

but they cannot be applied to state actions. Individuals may insist that justice comes first even if

the outcome is in disadvantage of them; however, states do not have the right to say it as they are

responsible for those inhabiting in their territories and the moral principle of survival has utmost

significance for them. It is not true for states to identify their moral aspirations with the moral

laws governing the universe. If they are to obey the universal moral principles, these principles


5/5

should be in their own advantage, which means they should make use of these principles to

rationalize their actions and give the message that they are taking morally right steps and finally

international domain is different from any other field of human concern and has its own

standards such as interest defined in terms of power. The decision makers should first answer

whether the alternative policies on the way of being implemented will increase the state power or

not.

It is possible to see the traces of these principles in the American decision of invading Iraq. First

of all, mankind has constantly been in pursuit of power throughout the history and the struggle

for power is a part of human nature.Today, the United States is and has been the hegemon since

the collapse of the USSR and, very understandably, she doesntwant to lose her status.

Secondly, American decision makers believed that the US interests necessitated the invasion.

They were aware of the fact that it was feasible to occupy Iraq rather than Iran or North Korea in

terms of military power capabilities and it wouldntbe appropriate to take the moral concerns,

namely whether there were really weapons of mass destruction or not, into account in the

decision making process. An attack on Iran or North Korea could have cost more for the USA in

respect to casualties and military expenses, so they must have found it more possible to attack

Iraq when they took the power relations into account. Thirdly, American decision makers were

also aware that balance of power was notpermanent and if they hadnt taken actionjust after the

attacks on twin towers and Pentagon, the image of the USA would have been damaged. It is

generally true that image comes before reality and once the perception of weakness is given, it

can lead to serious consequences for a state to be borne.

Criticism on Post.docx

Documents

Transcript of Criticism on Post.docx