New books on religious anarchism(s)
I certainly understand the concern that my religio-political views — whether one uses the terms “Catholic anarchism,” “anarcho-Catholicism,” “participatory democratic Catholicism,” “libertarian socialist Catholicism,” etc. etc. — are “idiosyncratic.” I try to be patient with such charges, pointing when I can to persons, movements, and teachings in our Catholic tradition as well as among the wider Body of Christ that inspire and support the stances that I take.
It might also help to point to contemporary phenomena such as the recent explosion of books on Christian and other religious anarchisms. I’ve already commented on Tripp York’s Living on Hope While Living in Babylon: The Christian Anarchists of the 20th Century in a review here. This past August saw the publication of a collection of essays called Religious Anarchism: New Perspectives, edited by Alexandre J. M. E. Christoyannopoulos. I’ve received a review copy and will be sharing my thoughts on it soon(ish). Here is the description from the publisher’s website:
Both religion and anarchism have been increasingly politically active of late. This edited volume presents twelve chapters of fresh scholarship on diverse facets of the area where they meet: religious anarchism. The book is structured along three themes:
• early Christian anarchist “pioneers,” including Pelagius, Coppe, Hungarian Nazarenes, and Dutch Christian anarchists;
• Christian anarchist reflections on specific topics such as Kierkegaardian indifference, Romans 13, Dalit religious practice, and resistance to race and nation;
• religious anarchism in other traditions, ranging from Wu Nengzi’s Daoism and Rexroth’s Zen Buddhism to various currents of Islam, including an original Anarca-Islamic “clinic.”
This unique book therefore furthers scholarship on anarchism, on millenarian and revolutionary thinkers and movements, and on religion and politics. It is also of value to members of the wider public interested in radical politics and in the political implications of religion. And of course, it is relevant to those interested in any of the specific themes and thinkers focused on within individual chapters. In short, this book presents a range of innovative perspectives on a web of topics that, while held together by the common thread of religious anarchism, also speaks to numerous broader themes which have been increasingly prominent in the twenty-first century.
Finally, Christoyannopoulos has recently published his own monograph titled Christian Anarchism: A Political Commentary on the Gospel. Here is that book’s description:
Christian anarchism has been around for at least as long as “secular” anarchism. The existing literature cites Leo Tolstoy as its most famous (sometimes even as the only) proponent, but there are many others, such as Jacques Ellul, Vernard Eller, Dave Andrews or the people associated with the Catholic Worker movement. Both individually and collectively, these Christian anarchists offer a compelling critique of the state, the church and the economy based on numerous passages from the New Testament. Yet despite the relevance and growth of this literature, no generic study bringing together these different thinkers or reflecting on their contribution has been published to date, because such work involves meticulous searching, compiling and structuring of countless different texts and sources, not all of which are easily accessed. This book, however, provides precisely such a study, and thereby presents Christian anarchism to both the wider public and the wider academic community.
All of these books are intriguing in their own ways. But as I noted in my review of York’s book, I am concerned with the way depictions of Christian anarchism, like much theology, tend to focus on “great thinkers,” mostly of the past, and engage little with current anarchist thinking and action. I have been guilty of this myself to some degree. So as I look at these two recently published texts, I’ll be looking for whether or not they pay attention to anarchist movements of today and in what ways, including whether or not they provide much by way of concrete proposals for radical Christian praxis.
Comments are closed.
I think the reasons why people focus on the great thinkers of the past are obvious, but I think you are right, more needs to be done that just that; rather, like Wisdom literature, one needs to show one knows and understands that past by taking the issues into the present. It’s difficult. But I think a good balance might be 50/50.
The “past vs. present thing” is a concern, but also the “great thinker/leader vs. movements thing.”
Michael
True. Of course, again, I can understand reflections on great thinkers — but it should not be the whole of the concern.
From the description of these books you’ve provided here it sounds like anarchism is nothing but a critique of the state.
It’s not actually a constructive political idea, that is, an idea with which a community could organize itself.
Can you point to any communities organized according to the ideas of religious anarchy?
On the road right now but there are a lot of communities, businesses, movements, families, etc. whose common life is rooted in anarchistic principles. Perhaps some other VN readers could point to some. As always, these groups would be only partial expressions of anarchism, as there is no blueprint for what it “looks like.”
And you are exactly wrong about anarchism being merely a critique of the state with nothing positive to contribute. It is a critique of much more than the state, and it does indeed contain positive elements, suggestions, visions, institutions, etc.
One good example of a contemporary constructive anarchist proposal is the elaboration of “participatory economics” by Michael Albert, “parecon” for short. I could do a post on this at some point. I think it contains economic principles quite in line with the vision of Laborem Exercens.
I’d also suggest that we question the opposition of “critical” and “constructive.” critique IS often constructive.
Hi Michael,
I’m a follower of your blog. What do you think of the Mutualists?
I’ve studied parecon in some measure. I think in practice parecon requires a massively centrally administered government. The authority to make choices has to rest somewhere, and someone has to make sure that people obey the rules. In other words, parecon has to be an imposition on people, as all government is. There is no way around this, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. It’s also questionable how it can be considered anarchist when in fact it’s understood by it’s principle architects to be derivative of state socialism.
If you ever found parecon island, let me know! I’d like to visit and to see how you live. ( I mean this lightheartedly and in a serious way )
Zach, it does not appear that you know anything about parecon from what you have said. Not one thing you said is accurate.
Well, maybe my memory is bad. I will revisit some of the material. But generally speaking, it’s not possible to establish or secure an economic order of a particular form without some rules and some form of government to enforce the rules.
Zach – I think you are thinking according to statist assumptions rather that what parecon actually is about. It would seek to “establish” participatory principles in a business, a community, but would not want to “secure” those arrangements for anyone else necessarily. It’s not really a blueprint for society in the sense of advocating some kind of state takeover for the establishment of a parecon society. It is simply a set of principles for what a just and truly participatory economy would look like. I will try to write a post on it soon.
Sounds like a good time.
Principles are all well and good, but of course the trick is in practical implementation. Political philosophy is partly theoretical and partly practical, and politics is really best understood as a practice science (science in the Aristotelian sense). A good principle will have good consequences, and a bad principle will have bad consequences.
You’re getting pretty sarcastic.
I’ll give you examples of practical implementation.
I’m often bad at conveying tone… I did not intend that to be sarcastic. Sorry if the previous comment came off like that.