Content
Philosophy professor Todd May asserts that the overall purpose of the book is "to offer a critique of the way power, and specifically political power, is commonly conceived". Newman persistently questions how anarchism can refrain from reproducing the forms of oppression that it strives to overcome.
Newman incorporates concepts from post-structuralist thought such as post-humanism and anti-essentialism into classical anarchism. Unlike May, whose post-anarchism is a combination of the two, Newman attempts to move beyond both anarchism and post-structuralism. He proposes that "by using the poststructuralist critique one can theorize the possibility of political resistance without essentialist guarantees: a politics of postanarchism … by incorporating the moral principles of anarchism with the postructuralist critique of essentialism, it may be possible to arrive at an ethically workable, politically valid, and genuinely democratic notion of resistance to domination".
The book uses the work of French philosophers Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari, and Jacques Derrida as well as classical anarchist thinkers such as Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, recognizing "proto-poststructuralist" Max Stirner as an important forerunner of postanarchist thought. Newman focuses particularly on the work of Deleuze, Derrida, and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.
Read more about this topic: From Bakunin To Lacan
Famous quotes containing the word content:
“It seems that I must bid the Muse to pack,
Choose Plato and Plotinus for a friend
Until imagination, ear and eye,
Can be content with argument and deal
In abstract things; or be derided by
A sort of battered kettle at the heel.”
—William Butler Yeats (1865–1939)
“You are not satisfied unless form is so strictly divorced from content that you can comprehend the one without almost without bothering to read the other.”
—Samuel Beckett (1906–1989)
“Quintilian [educational writer in Rome about A.D. 100] hoped that teachers would be sensitive to individual differences of temperament and ability. . . . Beating, he thought, was usually unnecessary. A teacher who had made the effort to understand his pupil’s individual needs and character could probably dispense with it: “I will content myself with saying that children are helpless and easily victimized, and that therefore no one should be given unlimited power over them.””
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)