Anarchist Sociology and the Legacy of Peter Kropotkin

Abstract

Despite relevance of their views to understanding society, anarchist theorists had little influence on early development of social sciences. Mac Laughlin (1986) attributed this to fact that these sciences were established in State supported institutions in latter half of nineteenth century; a context in which nation-state was assumed to be both natural and progressive. Consequently, he claimed, nascent social sciences excluded anarchists from their ranks, having deemed them traitorous and their ideas utopian. While deliberate disregard for anarchists and their ideas is no doubt less common today than it was in past, anarchist thought still gamers little attention in mainstream sociology. There have, however, been two notable recent attempts to end this history of neglect in our discipline.1Purkis (2004) began by lamenting ongoing inattention to anarchist thought on part of sociologists and delineating theoretical, methodological, and institutional challenges to its widespread recognition. However, he went on to observe that late twentieth century emergence of chaos and poststructural theories might bode well for future of such thought in sociology. Specifically, he noted that these analytical perspectives create space for other non-deterministic and power-centric interpretations of events, including those of anarchists. The presence of such space coupled with usefulness of anarchist thought for addressing issues of power and oppression led Purkis to propose that the opportunity for an anarchist sociology to emerge in a contemporary context should therefore not be underestimated (p. 54).2Williams and Shantz (2011) recognized efforts of Purkis (2004) and others to introduce anarchist thought into mainstream sociology but found these efforts to be wanting in that they are almost always in abstract, never referencing a specific set of ideas or (p. 10). In an attempt to help remedy this situation these authors, after identifying a number of forms that anarchist sociology might assume, proposed a version in which sociologists study freedom, antiauthoritarianism, direct action, mutual aid, and decentralization with an eye toward increasing their occurrence both inside and outside of sociology. Williams and Shantz readily acknowledged that their version of anarchist sociology is but one of many possibilities. However, they presented it as a reasonable and timely step toward melding anarchist and sociological traditions.The previously cited works and their referents have contributed greatly to situating anarchist concerns within contemporary sociological discourse and to understanding how we might anarchize our pursuits. That said, in order for anarchist sociology to optimally combine theory and practice its critique of power and its politicized scholarship need to be embedded in a comprehensive analytical perspective on par with those that currently define our discipline. While prospect of such a perspective is implicit in works of many anarchist scholars, and explicit in work of Williams and Shantz (2011) who identified it as one of forms that anarchist sociology might assume, it is a prospect that remains unfulfilled.The purpose of this work is to suggest that views of Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921) provide a useful foundation for oft anticipated but as yet unrealized paradigmatic anarchist sociology. To that end, I will begin with a brief synopsis of Kropotkin's distinctive approach to social analysis followed by delineation of a rudimentary analytical framework derived from that approach. I will then turn to a discussion of most important merits of proposed framework before closing with a commentary on future of Kropotkian anarchist sociology.KROPOTKIN'S APPROACH TO SOCIAL ANALYSISAs an anarchist theorist who was estranged from social sciences of his day, Peter Kropotkin did not always present his views in conventional scholarly formats or forums. …