Power Relations Criticism: The Unpopularity of "Anarchism" as a Viewpoint

 Power Relations Criticism

Power Relations Criticism: The Unpopularity of "Anarchism" as a Viewpoint

1. Background of Anarchism

• In the United States in particular, its form of government and economic system is commonly accepted as the best form of governmental and economic systems. This means, that when citizens advocate or simply speak of alternative forms of systems such as "communism" or "socialism", people often react negatively.
• This could be seen in the era of the Red Scare or McCarthyism in the United States during the 1950s. This period was characterized by a fear of communism and anarchism, or other similar forms of leftist ideologies. This led to the attack of people who were associated with these ideologies, or "blacklisting". It can be argued that this era never really ended, as American capitalism and democracy continued to be considered as the "truth", or as the best form of society.
• Anarchism is quite similar to Marx's communism, although it particularly focuses on political liberation rather than economic liberation (although this is part of it). Anarchism was mainly created by the Russian scientist, anthropologist, and historian named Peter Kropotkin. He wrote about anarchism as an ideology in his book, The Conquest of Bread. Understanding the philosophy of anarchism allows for it to become visible, as its actual meaning has been hidden by the powerful discourse that has made generalizations about its meaning due to its general challenge against central government.
• Anarchism has taken on a tone of being a theory of complete chaos due to its challenge against domination-based authoritative central government, which means that in America, people often use it as an insult. It has often been used as a way to describe a lack of American "law and order" due to this common belief about it. 
• Yet, when examining the philosophy of anarchism proposed by Kropotkin in his book, it is actually a theory of order. Rather than no organization at all, it simply says there should be no domination-based government and resources should be handled in a community-oriented way. Thus, it is not as though there is no social organization, it is just that it is not organized in a hierarchical central government.
• He also talks about the harm of capitalism and its concentration of capital in the hands of a few, and promotes a communal distribution of goods. This is because those who work contribute to the existence of capital, but it actually ends up only benefitting the wealthy few.
• This means satisfying the needs of society in a communal and non-privatized manner, and instituting a more radical democracy where labor has mutual benefits and there is not as much of a wealth gap as has been seen in capitalistic systems.
• Anarchism is particularly attributed for founding the idea of "mutual aid", which is a theory which like the basis of anarchism, has to do with the sharing of resources for mutual benefit such as food banks.

2. Power Relations Criticism of Anarchism

• This particular criticism connects to some of McKerrow's Principles in relation to power relations rhetorical criticism
• 1. Discourse of Power is Material
• In America in particular, while it is obvious in systems how the hegemonic discourse favors the systems that America has and resists challenges to it, it is even more obvious in the language and discourse. This can be seen in how people who critique issues in American society are often considered "unpatriotic". This has obviously improved over time (this demonstrates how powerful discourse changes over time), as someone who identifies with more radical ideologies like anarchism or communism would not likely be treated today as they would decades before. For example, since Angela Davis was teaching communism theory early in her short-lived career as a professor at UCLA, she was fired and later due to her involvement in The Black Panther Party considered an "enemy" of the United States. While this shows how discourse of power has changed over time, the word "anarchy" in particular is still associated with things like protests even though protesting is not directly a part of the philosophy in The Conquest of Bread. 
• This demonstrates that this language and prominent rhetoric has "material", or explicit effects on people. In America's past, it has allowed for people whose words challenge American discourse of power to be silenced and marginalized.
• It is also interesting that prominent discourse in America is that it is the epitome of "democracy" and "the land of the free". Thus, it is interesting that while this is prominent language that describes hegemonic beliefs about America, anarchism is dismissed when its main premise is democracy and freedom. 
• 2. Naming is Central to the Rhetoric
• The naming of complex philosophies is particularly impactful in how they are understood, and why their true meaning is often subordinated by the prominent discourse that prefers American systems of government. For example philosophies similar to "anarchism", like "communism" and "socialism" are often used as insults. This is particularly used as an insult towards people who are considered more progressive or liberal in terms of their viewpoints, and they are often called "communists", "socialists", "anarchists", or "commies". While, again, the discourse of power has changed and has improved, this centrality of this name-calling has not completely diminished.
• It is interesting that even the word "anarchy" is often not associated with the political philosophy that it is rooted in. Rather, "anarchy" is considered a synonym for chaos and societal disorder. It can even be sees that in most definitions and conversational usage of "anarchy", this is how it is used. Thus, it is interesting that while even words rooted in similar ideologies like "communist" or "socialist" still have a limited but evident association with the economic theories or systems that they promote when used in conversation, "anarchy" has been basically associated with chaos. Thus, it seems that the meaning of anarchism is not only hidden or marginalized due to the prominent discourse, but replaced. 
• 3. Critics Are Making Arguments
• In this particular criticism, the argument I have hopefully made is that the actual meaning of anarchism has been hidden, and I am hopefully unveiling it. The prominent discourse has had a misunderstanding of its philosophy as one that promotes or results in chaos, when in actuality it is promoting the sharing of resources, and challenges domination-based governments and the concentration of capital into the hands of a few elites. 
• The prominent discourse has viewed anarchism as completely opposite of the current American system, when in reality, it is a more radical form of democracy, which is what America identifies itself as. Actually, one can see how humans have certain anarchic inclinations or tendencies. This can be as practical and complex as the existence of food banks, the array of service organizations that provide health, housing, and food resources to the less fortunate, and discourse about making education less expensive. Yet, it can be seen as natural as being in a classroom and sitting down in a chair. It would be unnatural for a few students to take all of the chairs and not allow everyone to equally have a space to learn. While this seems trivial, it does show a natural possibility and inclination for humans to share resources with others.
• A takeaway I hope an audience gets from this power relations criticism is that I am not advocating for anarchism to be completely implemented, or that it is a perfect system and the best in comparison to others. It can be rather fear-inducing to think of a society with no central government. Rather, I am trying to unveil its true philosophical meaning that has been subordinated by the prominent discourse that generalizes it as a theory of chaos and an absence of societal organization. I do hope that the points made suggest how American society in particular can learn from some of the ideas anarchism promotes, such as the sharing of resources, mutual aid, the harm in the concentration of power, and the peculiarity of thousands of workers contributing to capital, only for it to be in the hands of the wealthy few. I hope the unveiling of this marginalized philosophical viewpoint also demonstrates how its focus on radical democracy and liberation from exploitation is not much different from how American discourse prominently describes itself as: which is a "democracy" and "land of the free".

3. My Perspective on Power Relations Criticism

• I think Power Relations Criticism is a valuable form of rhetorical criticism because it is able to identify hidden and subordinated viewpoints, perspectives, and forms of rhetoric. This is important becomes other forms of discourse and what is commonly accepted as the "truth" ultimately goes without criticism or examination, which can be a harmful phenomenon if people are not exposed to other ideas. True knowledge can come from forming one's own opinions or perspectives after hearing many sides of an argument.
• I also think it is important because it allows for marginalized opinions to become visible through the critic's argument. By making these opinions visible, it can allow for people to have a variety of interpretations about particular ideas. 
• I think another valuable aspect of Power Relations Criticism is its emphasis on how "naming" is impactful in discourse. This is important to recognize because it reveals how language and forms of "labeling" or binary ways of "name-calling" can limit people from having holistic understandings and having reactionary behavior that does not take into account the time it takes to fully understand opinions that are often marginalized. This phenomenon connects to how many creative or radical opinions, particularly in the United States, are shut down or punished for not aligning with national hegemonic ideologies.
• I think that one aspect of Power Relations Criticism that can be an issue is that while forms of power in discursive structures can be constant, power relations are also constantly changing which means that arguments can sometimes seem absolute when in reality over a few years the structures of knowledge and what is commonly accepted may change.