Blasting the Canon

What's left to say about the anarchist canon? One answer might be that reflecting on the canon's construction can help reveal something about the ways in which anarchism has been misunderstood. Another possibility is that it locates anarchism - in all its diversity and complexity - in part...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Format: Electronic Book Chapter
Language:English
Published: Punctum Books 2013
Subjects:
Online Access:DOAB: download the publication
DOAB: description of the publication
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000naaaa2200000uu 4500
001 doab_20_500_12854_114268
005 20231005
003 oapen
006 m o d
007 cr|mn|---annan
008 20231005s2013 xx |||||o ||| 0|eng d
020 |a jj.2354036 
020 |a 9780615838625 
040 |a oapen  |c oapen 
024 7 |a 10.2307/jj.2354036  |c doi 
041 0 |a eng 
042 |a dc 
072 7 |a JPFB  |2 bicssc 
245 1 0 |a Blasting the Canon 
260 |b Punctum Books  |c 2013 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
506 0 |a Open Access  |2 star  |f Unrestricted online access 
520 |a What's left to say about the anarchist canon? One answer might be that reflecting on the canon's construction can help reveal something about the ways in which anarchism has been misunderstood. Another possibility is that it locates anarchism - in all its diversity and complexity - in particular geographical and historical locations. The canon not only establishes the parameters of anarchist theory, it sets them in a particular (European) context, serving as a springboard for subsequent revisions, developments and critiques. The canon describes a classic form, to use George Woodcock's term - it benchmarks anarchism. Who constructed it, where did it come from - what are the implications of its reification in contemporary anarchist studies? How successful have recent critiques been in overcoming the limitations that canonical study has encouraged? What are the risks of leaving the canon intact, even if as a target for critique? Should anarchists worry about the explosion of the canon if the result is to include as 'anarchist' philosophers or movements who do identify with anarchist traditions? What does self-identification mean in the absence of a canon? Does the rejection of the canon imply the rejection of an anarchist history of ideas, and if such a history remains important in anarchism, how should it be approached and understood? In this special issue of Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies (Issue 2013.1) edited by Ruth Kinna and Süreyyya Evren, noted anarchist scholars explore these questions. 
540 |a Creative Commons  |f https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/  |2 cc  |4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ 
546 |a English 
650 7 |a Anarchism  |2 bicssc 
653 |a Political Science 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jj.2354036  |7 0  |z DOAB: download the publication 
856 4 0 |a www.oapen.org  |u https://directory.doabooks.org/handle/20.500.12854/114268  |7 0  |z DOAB: description of the publication