What do we Resist when we Resist the State?

What do we resist when we resist the state? By Erin Araujo Memorial University of Newfoundland Geography as a practice has long been intwined with state institutions and modernist conceptions of truth as an instrument for consolidating power (Livingstone, 1992). The presence of the state in geography is evident by the silence and wavering appearance of anarchism in scholarly literature (Hewitt, 2001:17). This presence obligates anarchist geographers to deepen analyses of the state itself and modernity as both separate and entangled networks. From the beginning of published anarchist thought scholar/activists have opposed domination by the state and capitalism, which over time has expanded to resisting all forms of domination (Clough and Blumberg, 2012:337). The state as identified by Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman and others is not necessarily the state that is resisted today in anarchist movements, rather the state and anarchists have changed over time, though the goal of creating liberatory spaces and experiences continues. Many anarchists have moved to spaces beyond the earlier science-centered focus into a broader range of liberatory evidences (Lopes de Souza, 2014). Modernist thought has not been a monolithic entity either. While some currents of thought have been constant such as what Viveiros de Castro (2010:28) identifies as “the three blessings of Modern Man: the holy trinity of State (the Father), Market (the Son) and Reason (the Holy Spirit)”; the varying forms of capitalism and myriad manifestations of power exerted by states to control their populations has continually been a process of change. A few centuries ago modernist thought was considered part of a liberatory politics, while today it is often referred to as one of the foundations of the consolidation of power that the state has used to exert control over its populations. Latour (2015) notes, “When people talk about modernity, they mean that they want to achieve something, which usually is politically dangerous.” The political danger in modernity comes from the myriad hegemonies that are imposed on populations in its name, though modernity in itself has become somewhat nebulous in that it can be used to describe just about any strategy for essentialization, construction and/or oppression (Ibid). This is because modernist thought provokes strong theory, while anarchism, which strives to avoid domination of all kinds, would do well to incorporate weak theory and move beyond its modernist roots. Strong Theory is recognized as the use of powerful discourse based in evidence sought through simplified, clear non-messy description of events that fall easily into clean categories and explanations. While Weak Theory embraces nuance, thick description and emergent spaces that may not necessarily be clear, clean discourses but rather a mixture of openness and exploration in the research process (Gibson-Graham, 2014; Sedgwick, 2003; Wright, 2015). Anarchism, being one remnant of the liberatory politics (along with socialism) that arose within modernist thought, often, in its initial documents sought liberation through scientism (See Kropotkin's work on Mutual Aid or Bakunin's God and the State for examples). Similar to state socialism and modernist democracy projects, many anarchists believed that science would provide liberating answers to the complex problems faced at the beginning of the twentieth century (Lopes de Sousa, 2014), in this anarchism was originally a modernist project. Today scientism is being de-centered from its power nexus through much of the work within Science and Technology Studies, which to a certain degree pursues the anarchist principle of undermining hierarchy in that the verticality of science as an institution is deconstructed. Weak theory (Sedgewick, 2003; Gibson-Graham, 2006) then becomes an important thinking technology that anarchist scholars can use to embrace possibility and multiplicity while moving beyond modernism. Weak theory recognizes that there are no singular truths and that theory is constantly changing and based on practice; it has the possibility of embracing horizontal forms of research. Another thinking technology useful for moving beyond modernism is epistemic disobedience (Mignolo, 2009) where we are invited to disconnect from the zero point hubris of singular truths. Within a decolonial approach modernity is often seen as essential to the colonial project of establishing what is permitted as true, real and possible while simultaneously negating the true, real and possible of those living within colonial (as well as post- and neo-) schema. Modernity has served as a justification for the creation of imperialist agendas and colonial occupations. The state as a power consolidating vehicle is a manifestation of the many oppressions that are suffered to maintain and control populations; the myriad services that are provided to citizens; bounded, militarized territory; and a conglomerate of specific economic policies/practices. Many forms of autonomous resistance have established their own forms and systems of education and health services as well as infrastructure and governance to distance themselves from the reaches of a given state. However, these services are often limited in their capacity to provide institutions of higher learning such as universities or in the case of health services, to provide complicated procedures in the form of surgeries or long term care. Often resisting the state is fraught with contradictions and complications given that there are few if any areas of land that are not within a given state territory. In spite of the physical occupation of the land by the state, many people live, act and think in ways that do not coincide with state mandated legal systems. These acts of resistance often take place in areas that have been subject to coloniality (post- and neo-) and coincide with an advantageous use of what Sousa Santos (2007) refers to as abyssal thinking where the centers of power are condoned reason and truth and the peripheries where coloniality has been exerted are considered as extra-rational and extra-legal where anything is permitted and simultaneously oppressed through appropriation/violence. These abyssal spaces are where resistance against the state has been most fruitful, not within an effort to create another state but rather by occupying myriad spaces in order to create other possibilities. In many parts of the Americas autonomous spaces, specifically in resistance to the state have taken form. Often the experiences of those living in these spaces are complex and contradictory between desires to move beyond the classic schema of ethnic classifications, economic domination and myriad oppressions in order to realize spaces that (attempt to) engage in liberatory theory/practices. This chapter explores the implications of using weak theory and a decolonial perspective on the concepts of modernity and the state. These analyses are then used to expand a framework for diversifying the state. Modernity in weak theory and decolonial thought Modernist thought is a political technology (among many other technologies) that has been used to many ends including the consolidation of power through the development of institutions of government, science, religion and the expansion of hegemony. Sousa Santos (2007) characterizes “Western modernity as a socio-political paradigm founded on the tension between social regulation and social emancipation”. While Wallerstein (2000) has identified two primary expressions of modernity, modernity of technology and the modernity of liberation. Modernity as liberation or emancipation has been noted by Harvey (1992) as growing out of Enlightenment thought, where the quest for truth and rationality could be attained by anyone with the appropriate skills and logical process. The path would lead to universal freedom and liberation (once each person was properly educated, indoctrinated and inculcated into society). The liberatory nature of Enlightenment thought, realized as modernism, gave birth to the nation-state, capitalism, communism and anarchism among a great deal of other ideas and practices. Each construct has sought liberation, though through very different means for very different populations. The nineteenth century saw the growth and expansion of each of these ideas as theory and practice, constantly playing off each other. Anarchism developed in response to the lack of liberty, the extension of oppression that comes with capitalism, nation-states and communism; if these pressures were not a constant force of violence and oppression anarchism would not be necessary. Anarchism strives to make itself unnecessary by eliminating domination in all forms through practice of quotidian resistance. Modernism inspired the ideas of liberation and equality that are fundamental to anarchism. In that sense we can see that modernist thought did not necessarily have to be the expression of singular epistemologies and ontological domination. Rather these processes came about from the desire to maintain hierarchy and dominate large groups of people by any means. Where modernism has been taken up by nation-states within capitalism and communism it has been practiced as creative destruction, dictatorship and unending bureaucracies that transformed the Enlightenment vision of a truth that could be found and a singular freedom that could be experienced and propitiated into a justification for oppression. These contradictions were realized within the desire to create marketable art, architecture, cities, machines and homes for producing a modern experience (Ibid; Scott, 1998). Enlightenment ideals became modernist theory and as practice created psycho-social spaces in which humans were able to theoretically create and control their realities. Wars could destroy lives, communities, towns and cities which were then new markets for governments and corporations to construct anew. This is the modernity of technology. Utopias of administration, control, research and commodification of the lived experience could be designed from afar and built thousands of kilometers away in situ to create societies in which humans could theoretically (often catastrophically) work, live and flourish (Scott, 1998). Harvey (1992) notes that artists became the ultimate conveyors of culture. New ways of seeing and experiencing the world, founded in constant ruptures with the past became the ultimate goal. Within the structures of governance nation-states could form scientific committees and agencies that would design the ideal (often highly exclusive) productive populace. Scott (1998) examined the calamity of bureaucratic design and the development of scientific forestry, cities and societies in Germany, Brazil, Russia, and the United States. He argues that state driven policies such as collectivization of rural Russia or Le Corbusier's scientific cities, built within high-modernist goals, eliminated variables such as the desires and lifeworlds of Russian peasants or the complexity of constructing social spaces that foment experiences of community. In these examples the state actively engaged in enacting modernist ideals upon its populations. Within a framework of weak theory it is not possible to claim that the state did modernism. Rather certain individuals within specific networks and contexts engaged in particular practices which have since been incorporated into and artfully constructed within the strong theory of modernism. When we identify a singular force as responsible for a multiplicity of action/behavior we reify what is reflected as the modernist agenda and negate the diversity of experience that is embraced by weak theory. Mignolo (1999) has written about border epistemologies and Sousa Santos (2007) has identified abyssal thinking where modernity implies reality being constructed on one side of the line (border) and on the other side of the line (border) the abyss of all other kinds of thinking coming into being as non-objects and non-subjects except where they become objects of domination by the other side of the line, the valid side of the line. While Mignolo (2009) has noted that within a decolonial perspective there exists the humanitas in Europe and other centers of western thought while in the rest of the world exists the anthropos. The state and modernity, simultaneously originating within the already ongoing colonialism and imperialism cannot be delinked as independent objects being that their origin has been simultaneous. However, neither can they be treated as the same universal actor. Rather they expand networks of action and relationships that are mutually woven. Both works build on Foucault's concepts of regimes of truth and power/knowledge where power decides what is true. As part of abyssal (border) thinking few ways of being have been permitted as acceptable within colonial (including post- and neo-) spaces. Many authors (see Said, 2003; Fanon, 2008; among others) have shown how representations and policies created within the centers of power have limited what are acceptable lifeworlds for colonial subjects. Those persons that did not live in accordance with the US and European ontological precepts were considered literally undeveloped. Beginning around the end of World War II through the present, people and geographies became the objects of development; not only the infrastructure of a place but also the people within it could be improved. Their diet/nutrition, education, and history could be constructed so that they may fit within a capitalist society (Escobar, 1995; Mitchell, 2002). Nation-states (as well as supranational organizations such as the United Nations) under a variety of types of governance have invoked modernist agendas to control and develop their populace. However, the policies and practices of a given state are not necessarily a representation of a monolithic entity. For example, while a given government may desire that market capitalism, lingual homogenization and nationalist education will spread to the deepest reaches of its territories, the actual implementation of those ideals are often enacted different from modernist practices, replete with bureaucracy, corruption, forgotten goals, absenteeism, and nepotism. The state and the practice of exerting the extension of the state within these spaces are highly divergent from the goals expressed in discourse and hegemonic statements of the expected outcomes of such development or modernist utopias. Governance of a place and the fulfillment of the intended outcomes of such governance are often highly divergent practices. Rarely in the Americas do we see nationalized health care systems that provide quality service, or civil protection through policing that is not corrupt, biased, racist and constantly serving the interests of keeping the property of the rich and elite safe. The list could on and on with examples of how nation-states do not provide sufficiently for all citizens but rather serve the interests of the upper classes to maintain wealth in its place. As Foucault (1991:103) notes, “...the state, no more probably today than at any other time in its history, does not have this unity, this individuality, this rigorous functionality, nor, to speak frankly, this importance; maybe, after all, the state is no more than a composite reality and a mythicized abstraction whose importance is a lot more limited than many of us think.” A weak theory framework provides an opportunity to open up the composite reality of the state and clarify its mythicized abstraction by eliminating hierarchies in the domain of concepts. Rather than privileging a concept such as racism, capitalism, the state or development, weak theory privileges thick description of events, context and interactions (Gibson Graham, 2014; Wright, 2015) as such hierarchies, in the sense that overarching concepts create a hierarchical relationship with the descriptions that create it, must be removed from both the definitions of concepts and our analysis of them. If modernism and high-modernism call for a homogenization of space and experience, anarchismi lends itself to a diversification of spaces and experience. In avoiding hierarchy, which is one of the more essential points in anarchism, this avoidance must apply to concepts as well. Much scholarship has been done to explain a state. However, the definition and redefinition of the state not only reifies it and essentializes the imagined community of the nation-state, but also accepts implicit hierarchies of concepts. If the state or modernity require hierarchical thinking in order to invoke them, within anarchist thought and scholarship we must reject those hierarchies and their constructs. Beyond simply deconstructing the state or modernity we must see these institutions through a lens of decentralized weak theory. Within an anarchist narrative modernity is a conglomerate multitude of practices, power structures and interests which sometimes work together, though often laboriously do not. Work on explaining modernity, which is fraught with multiplicitous connections and interactions, creates a utopic or dis-topic image of what has been possible within the constructs that are practiced and experienced in as many ways as the liberations and oppressions that are lived by the populace that suffers it. Modernist thought looks for the unifying, variable-poor experiments and explanations of a phenomena (Scott, 1998). While weak theory invites diversifying, variable-rich explorations of the multiplicitous possibilities that each situation presents and as such works to deconstruct the reality that is considered singular and true while replacing it with many possible worlds. The Weak, Decolonial State “this historical moment of the birth of History, this fatal rupture which should never have happened, this irrational event which we moderns call the birth of the State. In society's fall into the voluntary submission of almost all people to a single person” Clastresii, Archeology of Violence (2010) The practice (and later theoretical basis) of the nation-state came into existence with the American and French Revolutions in 1776 and 1789 respectively. The French Revolution in particular was transformative in that by removing the monarch, “The sovereign had become the people” (Wallerstein, 1992:23). The idea that people could govern, rather than a monarch [with a direct connection to God] democratized a political sphere that had once been possible only through inheritance or violent upheavals (Ibid). The justifications for the consolidation of the nation-state include the supposed need for a legal system, the protection of citizens within a territory, a national identity according to language, culture, morays, etc (Andersen, 2006). However, many of these services, especially within territories that have known the long and destructive process of colonialism (post- and neo-), have never been provided with much quality or quantity. Modernist state-craft associated with the creation of the current states that we encounter today is often located to having begun between the end of the 15 th century and the end of the 18th century depending on the nation-state in question and the mechanisms associated with its formation. For example, Illich (2009:39) traces the construction of the empire of Spain to the work of Antonio de Nebrija, in 1492, where his Gramática Castellana served to unite and homogenize the language of Spain, which up to that point was a territory of vernacular languages. Nebrija proposed to Queen Isabela that through unifying the language of Spain she would control the words and education of her people, building the pillar of her great nation. Books would be printed only in the language of the nation, while the vernacular languages in which fictions and alternate ideas were printed would be controlled. This argument is also madeiii by Benedict Anderson in Imagined Communities (2006) where he traces the shift from the construction of religious communities through the reading of Latin, Arabic and other holy languages to the construction of nationalism through the publication of nationalized (artificial) languages such as English, French, etc from Latin or Arabic, the languages of institutionalized religions. For Anderson, the control of language not only transforms the reader's conception of who may share similar ideas but also their shared concepts of time. Through language and contemporaneity the nation-states were fortified and realized. The consolidation of the nation-state truly came into being with independence movements in the Americas when new countries were formed out of Spanish, French and Portuguese colonialism. These movements, inspired primarily by the Mexican War for Independence and in South America out of the Bolivarian Revolutions (Andersen, 2006) created a new sense of nation. While these revolutions were marked with efforts to establish spaces of autonomous governance from weakened colonial governments great distances away from the colonies, they were also marked by dominance of the elites of those countries fighting for mechanisms of power through marked political classes which never conceived of power-sharing within the newly developed nations. For example, in the American Revolution, while fighting for autonomy from England, the "Founding Fathers" never had any intention of allowing wealth or property rights to the underclasses, for example John Adams, unabashedly negated the benefits of democracy to the people of the newly formed United States of America, “If all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have?... Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of everything would be demanded, and voted, and what would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery...” (As quoted in Graeber, 2013:54.3%). The co-emergence of the nation-state with modernism or scientism and liberalism in conjunction with political-economic agents including capitalism and communism has, in very general ways guided the development of these entities. Imperial nation-states have extended their concept of truth throughout much of the world [At the end of WWII it is estimated that 85% of the land on earth was either a colonial or post-colonial state (Sousa Santos, 2007:12)] and later as development aid to nations that were considered impoverished and inadequate beginning with the period of decolonization at the end of the WWII through the present (Escobar, 1995). Attempts to explain how nation-states maintain their sovereignty include much high quality scholarship on nationalism, patriotism, territoriality, governance, oppression and violence. While these works are of great use in creating a generalized Strong Theory of what a common state (where a common or general state is one that is located within the geographic and power centers such as Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, etc.) may enact in order to maintain its dominance, they do little to understand the practices of specific states and the unique conglomerate of experiences that a given group of citizens will live. Rather these experiences are under-valued in the concept of state-craft and/or governance as the individual trees are under-valued when one sees a forest. While there are no two forests that are alike, though they may share similar species of plants and animals, there are no two states alike, though they may share similar characteristics. The construction of knowledge outside of these centers of power, beyond the intellectual lines drawn by modernity, are valued as local knowledge and/or ethnographic anecdotes rather than as the actual knowledge of living within the experience of a given state (Mignolo, 2009). The desire to construe the state as monolithic and general is a modernist project (strong theory) that occludes the multi-facetted nature of what is practiced in order to maintain a state. Within a weak theory approach, the state is a conglomerate of people and practices with multiplicitous power relationships within a given territory. A weak theory approach to understanding the myriad practices that are the state, following Mol's praxiography of care around atherosclerosis (2002), could be investigated through multiple praxiographic projects. The praxis of enacting the state has the possibility of revealing all that is the abyss created by the state within a strong theory approach. As notes Viveiros de Castro (2010:15), And if the State has always existed, as Deleuze and Guattari argue in their insightful commentary of Clastres, then primitive society also will always exist: as the immanent exterior of the State, as the force of antiproduction permanently haunting the productive forces, and as a multiplicity that is non-interiorizable by the planetary mega-machines. "Primitive society," in short, is one of the conceptual embodiments of the thesis that another world is possible: that there is life beyond capitalism, as there is society outside of the State. There always was, and-for this we struggle-there always will be. The notion that the state is multiple and that one of its characteristics is made of the lifeworlds that are the anti-image of the construction of the concept and practice visibilizes the other side of the line in abyssal (border) thinking. States have never existed without their abyssal counter-part that is made of subjects in resistance the consolidation and exploitation of uneven power relations. If there were no counter-part to the state, no stateless space, then the state could not exist because it would be bordered by nothing. The ontological inception of the state requires the conceptual and practical abyss. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that which is not within the state, however, it is exactly this conceptual obfuscation that the state requires for it to be a universally normalized concept and experience. Similar to capitalism, following the work of JK Gibson-Graham (1996; 2006), the capitalist economy was once believed to invade even the most private spheres of our lives, now within the diversified economy framework (Gibson-Graham and Roevink, 2011), capitalism has been limited in the spaces it is allowed to occupy. The concept of economy is no longer limited to only referring to capitalist behavior, rather the range of economic practices are often a boundariless continuum of interactions ranging from nonpaid work, gifting, volunteering and sharing to the plethora of informal and formal work arrangements where money is exchanged (White and Williams, 2014). This is the work that must be done with the state. The practice of governing and providing services to the people living in a given area also form a range of interactions stretching from complete autonomy to a mixture of use of state services and nonstates services to entirely depending on agencies provided by a state government. This will be elaborated later in this chapter. The State on the Ground Over the past twenty years there has been movement towards autonomous (stateless) government in many parts of the Americas where social movements have taken up many of the services that were once provided by the state. This is evident in Chiapas, Mexico where, within the Zapatista Autonomous Zones, transportation, health and education systems have functioned over almost twenty years. Similarly in El Alto, Bolivia neighborhoods have joined together to provide many of the same services (Zibechi, 2010). While the Unemployed Workers Movement in Argentina and the Landless Peasants Movement in Brazil have worked to achieve similar objectives including access to land and non-oppressive work (Chatterton, 2004). These are but few of the movements engaging in daily resistance to the state. Many anti-state movements never appear in publications but consist of daily practices that simultaneously build community, provide care, engage in multiple types of non-monied economic interactions, protect and educate. These practices initiate a collective development where the relationships are not concrete, prescribed becomings, but instead something that becomes a coconstitutive anarchist self (Ince, 2012:1654). The co-constitution of the many selves that are part of collective development or collective community construction iv directly opposes the idea that the state is the only entity that may provide for its population. No longer do we find ourselves in a paternalistic relationship with the state where every action- be it love and marriage, birth, education, nutrition, sexuality, etc.- must be condoned by a legal framework imposed upon us, where our oppositions run the risk of incarceration, violence, marginalization and even death. Collective community construction steps away from dependence on the state (and the institution of religion) as the only mechanisms for service provisionv. “Thus, anarchist approaches to understanding and acting in society operate in a tension between an assertion of peoples’ agency to collectively self-manage their affairs on the one hand, and the everyday matrices of power that constrain autonomy, solidarity and equality on the other.” (Springer et al 2012:1593) The tension, between realizing the agency to self-manage, autonomy, solidarity and equality and the limitations imposed by the institution (the 'state'), the embodiment of the hierarchy (Ince, 2012:1651) often limit and force specific resistance techniques because one must act and think knowing that this same praxis is a threat to a unified conception of state-built dominance. Often anarchist resistance then, while working towards autonomy, must be small scale. However, even at a small scale these practices amplify the landscape of multiple forms of governance. Autonomy in its most basic form is the “desire for freedom, self-organization and mutual-aid” which is driven by wanting to overcome different forms of oppression and rejects participating in a system that reinforces the needs of the elite (Chatterton, 2005:545). This kind of autonomy manifests itself as collective self-management that critically works to eschew different forms of hierarchy (Ince, 2012:1653). In Chiapas, Mexico there is a wealth of experience around living in resistance to the state. Many books and articles have been written about the Zapatista movement and the incredible work that has been lived over that past twenty years in creating Autonomous Zones where health and education systems continue to grow to this day. While in many ways the movement itself is less potent and the members of the movement are fewer in number than at other times, there is a historical memory of the experience and process of resistance that continues to this day. While much has been written about the violence and oppression that was (and in much smaller quantities continues) exerted upon these communities, it is important to note that compared to similar social movements in Central America, the Zapatistas were not eliminated by the Mexican government. Rather, today many activists continue to live and resist the state both within these communities and beyond. There is a wealth of experience among activists that have lived in resistance over the past twenty years. Diversifying the State: a decolonial approach to dismantling the state “By admitting the existence of a universal process (modernity, capitalism, globalization) and of forces that, when all is said and done, underlie it (the forces of nature, the material, the technological, the economic),these ways of thinking again and again handed over to the systematizing forms of social science a territory and a logic they would never so easily have been able to establish.” (Mitchell, 2002:3) Within resistance against the state, the decolonial perspective and epistemic disobedience are of primary importance when understanding key points to be resisted and observed within transformative activist politics and practice. For those that have always lived in the Third World, majority world, Global South, etc.; the fictitious groupings of peoples that share only one experience in common, massive, violent oppression during centuries by a large variety of techniques of cultural and physical dominance and exclusion from what is understood as truth, rationality and reason, these concepts create barriers and opportunities. To what end is a conception of one world vs another world beneficial? To whom? When we identify the state how does that reproduce mechanisms of coloniality? In resistances to the construction of the state how can we recognize and engage in a decolonial process? The material and theoretical consolidation of the state reifies the abyssal line that creates a certain nothingness for the spaces that are outside the state especially when those spaces take place within the physical territory that supposedly pertains to state-led governance. In a very real way it often seems impossible to conceive of spaces that are not occupied by the state. However, similarly to capitalism within the Diverse Economies Framework (DEF), the state is not everywhere. While the physical territory that consists of state space may often appear to limit those physical possibilities that are possible on land and terrain, territory is a political technology that often quite successfully obscures the multitude of thought and practice that goes on within its borders (Elden, 2010). Not only does the state seem to occupy most land but it is also an entity that is entangled with the economy. Following Foucault (1991) and Polanyi (2001), the state and the creation and maintenance of the economy are built together and upon each other, each one requiring the other to exist. However, JK Gibson-Graham and the Community Economies Collective (among many others) have done significant work to diversify the economy within the DEF over the past twenty years. Their work has created spaces where capitalism, once perceived as all-encompassing, all-consuming, omnipresent in all relationships, has been relegated to the actions and intentions that it actually enacts. In the spaces once thought to be solely within a capitalist framework they (we) have found people working voluntarily, sharing, gifting, and exchanging. These spaces are now occupied by new perspectives for living outside of a constantly capitalist framework. In order to better understand the wide range of economic interactions at play at any time, we cannot expect to perform or privilege noncapitalist economic interactions without looking at the states role to maintain capitalism as the dominant economic practice. The silence or abyss within which the majority of economic interactions are occuring that are not capitalist is evidence in itself of the states suppression of alternative economic processes. Beyond the villianization of socialism and the destruction of lives and land that United States and its allies carried out with the goal of eliminating the “threat of communism” during the Cold War, the process of eliminating competition for capitalism as an economic model is still at hand. If one is to take seriously the call to privilege and enact alternative economic praxis, then we must also examine the great diversity practiced to accomplish governing. Within this vein, one may look at the state and modernity as not occupying all interactions and relationships but rather existing simultaneously alongside myriad other ways of being. The state has come to mean many many forms of oppression and social control while the resistances to these forms of control can take any form, be they massive uprisings or the daily practice of not respecting do not walk signs (Scott, 2012; Graeber, 2013) or occupying public spaces with alternative ideas and/or practices. Is it still possible that the state is everywhere and anything that we do that is not directly compliant with a social norm, a resistance or is there possibility and creativity? Furthermore, is any single nation-state identical to any other? Would it be desirable or even possible to imagine that the United States, Canada, Russia, France or Australia are the same entities or that Mexico, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Chile are the same or any other comparison of nation-states be they imperial, post-colonial, global south or global north? In our definitions, experiences, resistances, ontologies and epistemologies are these similar entities? I argue that they are not, though much scholarship within a modernist framework has been conducted to create these imaginaries. Within anarchist, semi-anarchist, and marxist (among many other more main-stream forms) scholarship this effort is evident over and over again. However, the state is not a single entity acting with one mind toward one goal, it is made up of millions of people, most of which have grown within the same indoctrinations and at some point work towards the dictated goals of the state. However, there is always resistance and there are alternate ways of meeting needs that become necessary when the state is violent, absent, and oppressive (both physically and psycho-socially). While it may be, at this time, incredibly difficult or even impossible at the present to live beyond the state or to live entirely outside of capitalism, small scale quotidian resistance is very possible in many places. It is also difficult to understand exactly when we are acting outside of the state. One space that has much overlap is the practice of providing care. Care may take the form of visiting doctors, babysitting, psychological services (be they through friends talking with friends or through professionals), physical exercise, etc. Many illnesses are often cured at home; children can be mostly cared for through organizing a community of people; psychological health is often a group process; physical health through exercise can be organized both individually and among friends and family. However, there are often diseases that are dangerous enough that we need to seek experts and technological solutions that cannot be provided for in the home. In seeking expert advice versus other forms of thought and experience we are confronted by the erratic, uncontrollable nature of disease and its care and prevention where decisions are not linear and the interests of experts in suggesting certain kinds of care are founded in myriad networks (Mol, 2008). Here in Chiapas, there exists an independent health care system for basic care and prevention within the Zapatista communities. Mostly run by by health promoters that train and learn together, community health clinics can often take care of many health issues from illness to giving birth. However, there are moments when these autonomous resources are not enough, be that due to the need for expert knowledge or technology that is not available at the clinic. From there one may seek care at government run hospital (healthcare in Mexico is somewhat socialized) where long lines, high demand and lack of resources abound and you take your chances (many times the chances of getting better are pretty good). The other option is, if there is enough money available to pay for the cost of the services you need, you can go to a private physician or hospital. In either case we end up participating in state run or state regulated services to survive. However, this does not negate the value in working towards autonomy as far as possible and it does not make an activist less anarchist or less committed simply because they use state-provided services. What is significant is that there are multiple networks woven together in order to achieve providing necessary care and some of those networks function outside of the machinations of the state. Following the work of the Community Economies Collective the work of the state is a summation of the practices that construct it, these practices can be pieced apart. The logic behind piecing apart capitalism is elaborated on the Community Economies Collective website (2015), “A representation of the ECONOMY as essentially CAPITALIST is dependent on the exclusion of many types of economic activities that transact, remunerate, appropriate and distribute and that do so according to multiple registers of value.” Similar to capitalism the representation of a single, modern, cohesive state excludes the many types of governance that each person, family, community, collectivity, enterprise, institution and place (which of course varies with scale) enacts with regard to decision-making practices, norms, morays, acts and institutions of care, justice, education, shelter, sustenance, etc., according to the expectations around how common situations should and will be governed. It is not only within indigenous communities that alternative forms of justice and ways of being are happening, rather each community, be it large or small enacts a form of governance. The DEF divides the economy into five mechanisms that make up the economy, those are transactions, labor, property, finance and enterprise vi. Within a diversified state we would see different mechanisms that together enact each state. These include forms of government, justice, networks of care, education, protection/security, land use, resource distribution, waste management and economy. Obviously this list could and should be expanded, however it serves as a first proposal to begin diversifying the state primarily because these services are the most visible and incorporate most interactions that we have with the state. The DEF, while it may not explore the microcosms of the economy it is a guide for deciding where to begin the practice of privileging certain economic interactions over others. For example, in an area where people may have little money but engage in sharing, mutual aid and gifting we see a variety of economic practices which then can be formalized and expanded. The DEF assumes that these practices are already taking place but have been hidden from view or under valued by the essentialization or strong theory of the capitalist economy. Within a weak economic theory one aspect of the economy is capitalism and many other interactions make up the rest. Diversifying the state should take a similar approach where it assumes that multiple forms of governance and service provision are already happening and democracy or socialism are only two elements of a varied praxiscape (the terrain of practices emergent in a given context). Here I lay out a brief framework of possibility for diversifying the mechanisms that are often referred to as the monolithic state. Government and Justice Government, governance, governmentality and the capacity of every person and group to make decisions and live by them is a messy and multiplicitous process, saturated with studies of power and hierarchy, and usually associated with heteronomy. Here I use the term governance along with justice to identify the policies and practices that a given entity across scales creates and administers systems of norms and morays across populations. While recognizing that the term governance was originally brought into use by the World Bankvii in reference to the role of decision-making taken on by Nongovernmental Organizations, here I will use the terms to refer more towards acts of agreement and decision-making that are not only or necessarily declared acts of autonomy such as in the case of selfgovernment, but rather more organic forms of governing that include local decision-making bodies and agreements among groups beyond the formal sector, in this way we make look at informal governance. Governing can be practiced in many ways ranging from decentralized horizontal decisionmaking practices among groups to centralized organizations that have been selected to govern through fascist practices of control and dominance. Government can happen for a day or endure centuries. The practices involved in governing are wide and varied. At the state level some scholars recognize that the state is de-centered from being the only organization permitted to elaborate norms in the form of laws to becoming part of many scales of diversified government practices. The concept of “governance without government” (Rhodes, 1996; Rosenau, 1995) employs the idea that civil society (and corporations) plays a greater role in the decision-making practices that were once the terrain of the state. While Sousa Santos (2006) notes that in post-colonial settings there exists a legal pluralism where several systems of legal practice, decision-making and enforcement exist simultaneously with the existing state government. Foucault has written about governmentality (1991) which he refers to as the knowledge, practice, institutions and technical apparatuses of security that over time have exerted the complex form of power to govern by the state. Governmentality does not look at the myriad ways in which people that are subject to being governed by the state actually engage in governing themselves and each other in micro- and informal governances. Finally within Actor Network Theory government is a series of material and theoretical practices that enact a practice of governing. Finally at the grassroots level autonomous communities create and follow group-specific management of governing processes. Justice, a system tightly interwoven with the enforcement of governance is also highly diverse. Ranging in scale from the home and community to federal institutions such as the supreme court demonstrate the many kinds of systems of justice happening at any time. Informal and formalized systems of justice, exist in many of the same mechanisms as governance. Prakesh and Esteva (1998), my own experience, as well as Zibechi (2010) and many others note that in autonomous communities there exist local forms of justice that exist to meet the needs of each community that designs their laws and punishments. The plethora of systems of government and justice ranging from micro to macro scales; with some often seeming privileged as the only system while others may transform lives with deep implications though they are rarely recognized or mentioned; mostly function alongside or apart from the state. Greater research is necessary to understand what percent of our lives are spent within form and informal systems of justice as well as state vs non-state forms of justice. These spaces present opportunities for resistance and creativity for creating other options in constructing lifeworlds. Networks of Care Care can take on many forms that are woven within many ontologies. Care may be one of the most diversified spaces where alternatives to the state flourish. As mentioned earlier, many groups of people in all different places are already engaging in non-state based practices of providing care. While separating ourselves entirely from the state may not be possible or even desirable at this time these alternatives are explicit and non-explicit resistances that are happening everyday and can be incorporated into more formal ways of exerting autonomy. Networks of care can take the form of groups of parents that share childcare, nursing the sick, friends giving each other therapy, exercise groups, midwifery and more structured practices such as the Zapatista healthcare system. This system is made up of many autonomous local clinics and health promoters that are not trained as doctors but rather have received some health education and are able to take care of patients with most common ailments that do not require special treatment. When a patient requires more than a clinic can offer they are taken to the larger clinics in the Caracoles which are good government centers, all autonomous, exerting self-rule. In the Zapatista system of healthcare there is a balance between curing with herbs and practices from the local communities as well as using allopathic medicine such as antibiotics and aspirin. The system is extensive with many many clinics throughout the Zapatistas' extensive autonomous territory. Education Similar to networks of care the practice of education is highly diverse from home schooling to Zapatista health promoters to the pedagogy of the oppressed people are educating themselves and each other in myriad ways. Within a diversified educational framework we can observe a great range of practice and possibility that moves apart from and alongside state institutions. Education is largely associated with state-craft in that it is a system of indoctrination for participation as citizens in a nationstate. As of the 2010 census in Mexico 43% of youth between 15-19 years old did not go to school viii. However this does not mean that they are not being educated in other ways in other processes. In Chiapas, the Zapatista Autonomous Education system has a plethora of elementary schools throughout the territory and secondary schools in the Caracoles. Children are educated about all of the major subjects but they done so in a specifically non-capitalist anti-institutional manner. Another example of large scale autonomous education comes from the Modragon Cooperative Corporation in Spain where they have their own university for educating employees and their children. Furthermore, the education that many people all over the world receive in the home is and should be recognized as valuable and autonomous. Social reproduction through education at home may be in accordance with or critical of the state, is incredibly important in meeting the needs of children to participate in the world we desire to create. Protection/security Non-state systems of protection/security are often some of the most problematic in that we are constantly vulnerable to its violence. Clough (2012) notes that even within social movements there always runs the possibility of state infiltrators that put activists at risk. State violence upon its citizens is always present. This violence takes many forms including poverty, marginalization, segregation, and indoctrination favoring hateful divisions based on race, gender, class, age and many other categories and physical violence. Hewitt (2001) notes that in the twentieth century state governments killed around 170 million civilians (give or take 100 million people). In the twenty-first century we have also seen incredible state violence on citizens. In Mexico we have seen the devastating narco-wars (2000present) (La Jornada, 2012) where at least 150,000 civilians were killed; in the last few months attacks on protesters in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero massacred 43 student-teachers and on February 25, 2015 police in Acapulco injured over 100 teachers in a protest. It is important and essential that groups of people protect ourselves from the violence that is permitted by police at different levels of government and by often disconnected oppressive agencies funded by local and federal governments. In the states of Guerrero and Michoacan communities have formed their own policing systems to protect themselves while in Chiapas in Zapatista communities there are similar mechanisms of protection. It is important to consider how to stay safe while living in territories claimed by states. Land use, Resource Distribution and Economics The diverse uses of land and its distribution among groups and individuals is an important point of research where geographers can greatly contribute to resisting the state. What are the diverse practices over a given terrain that manifest their own non-state mechanisms? How much land is occupied in these practices and how can we privilege these practices as geographers? Beyond simply reporting in how the state has acted to oppress and configure the land to its advantage, a diverse state approach to analyzing land use would include participatory action research in constructing and supporting alternate spaces. How does the physical context of quotidian resistances (both small and large) impact the work that is being done? Another important area where anarchist geographers can contribute is analyzing resource distribution. What alternatives are already at play for sharing and distributing resources more equitably? How are communities selecting degrowth options? What happens with objects and abilities that are not in use but needed by others close to us? Resource distribution has been a point of research within the DEF. A great deal of research has been done in the diversified economy which will I will not expand upon here. However, as a body of knowledge it incorporates and inspires the possibility of diversifying the state and all of its mechanisms. Alternative forms of land use and resource distribution include very small initiatives where individuals are creating ecological homes, growing organic food in their gardens and living conciously and independently as they may choose. In ascending scale the next step up may be collective housing and sharing within that space, libraries, tool shares, free play spaces for children like a friends ludoteca in the state of Veracruz, Mexico where neighborhood children can come and play in the space which is equipt with costumes, figurines and musical instruments, or our local network of solidarity housing. Then the next step up includes resisting genetically modified organisms in large crops, cooperatives, social movements like the Landless Workers Movement in Brasil or the Zapatista Autonomous Zone in Chiapas. There are a plethora of things happening all around us at any time that are focused on autonomy. Conclusion Within anarchist geographies it important to explore the possibilities of weak theory in order to decenter monolithic constructs such as the state and modernity. If we are to truly move beyond the imaginary of modernity it must be undermined by not engaging in its own method of singular truths and strong theory. The Diversified State Framework is a proposal that provides opportunities to look at and engage in not essentializing the state as a first step. By engaging in a praxiography of how we reproduce the state and how resistances to the state are practiced we begin to open up possibilities for alternative liberatory experiences. Many people around the world are already engaged in this option however their practice is often obfuscated by abyssal thinking. By taking advantage of these spaces that exist beyond the centers of truth and reason we can begin to privilege the practices that are not reifying the state and modernist thought. Anarchist geographers have a wide range of possibilities for creating and realizing research that not only deconstructs practices of domination but also research that practices liberations. By engaging in a deeper examination of the state, we begin to see multiple systems, numerous interactions and practices that create the imaginary of a monolithic state that acts as a well-oiled flawless machine. As groups, individuals, communities and collectives, people practice care, education, decision-making and informal governance, diverse economic interactions, protection and many other activities that were once considered only the domain of the state and before that the realm of religion. How much do we practice that which is assumed to be the duty of the state on a daily basis? As people living in areas that have been designated as pertaining to a state, how far are we from providing what we need for the people that are connected to us? In that which we are not able to provide, how many of those limits come from the governments that are supposed to meet those needs? As we live under the constant threat and evidence of violence that comes from these occupying bodies understood as states, how much of that violence is directed at people trying to meet the needs for services that are not provided by the state? At the time of writing this chapter in Mexico we are passing through the one year anniversary of the massacre/disappearance of forty-three students that were killed in Ayotzinapa, Guerrero while collecting funds for an event. They were activists for improving education. Finally, much work has been done in diversifying the economy to include a myriad of practices beyond capitalism. However, within this line of research there is little attention paid to the role of the state and practices of the entire range of governmentality and beyond that the practices of informal governance that accompanies alternative economic practices. If the economy is not a monolithic capitalist entity then neither is the state a monolithic entity. Rather, informal governance is happening all around us, all of the time, we are doing it ourselves, it only needs to be pulled out of the abyss to become visible. By privileging the diversity of practices of caring, educating, protecting and exchanging that do not come from the state we can begin to see how each person and group actively practices autonomy on a daily basis as a start for embracing spaces free of domination. Our own recognition of our practices that enact worlds beyond the domination of the state will place one more brick in fortifying the path towards eschewing the domination of the state and opening the possibilities of a future that each person has contributed to and would like to be a part of. References Anderson, Benedict. 2006 [1983]. Imagined Communities. Verso Press. Chatterton, Paul. 2005. “Making Autonomous Geographies: Argentina’s Popular Uprising and the ‘Movimiento de Trabajadores Desocupados’ (Unemployed Workers Movement).” Geoforum 5: 545– 561. Clastres, Pierre. 2010 [1980]. Archeology of Violence. Semiotext(e). Clough, N and Blumberg, R. 2012. Toward Anarchist and Autonomist Marxist Geographies. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 11 3:335-351 Clough, N. 2012. Emotion at the Center of Radical Politics: On the Affective Structures of Rebellion and Control. Antipode Vol. 44 5:1667–1686 Community Economies Collective. Key Ideas. http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home/Key-Ideas. Accessed 2/2/15. Escobar, Arturo. 1995. Encountering Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Elden, S. 2010. Thinking territory historically. Geopolitics Vol. 15 4:757-761 Fanon, Franz. 2008 [1952]. Black Skin, White Masks. Grove press. Ferrell, Jeff. 2012. Anarchy, geography and drift. Antipode. Vol 44 5:1687-1704. Foucault, Michel. 1980. “Truth and Power”. In Power/Knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977. Edited by Colin Gordon. 109-133. Pantheon Books. Foucault, Michel. 1991. Discipline and Punish: the birth of a prison. London: Penguin. Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality: with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Edited by Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gibson-Graham, J.K. 1996. The End of Capitalism (As we knew it). University Of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. 2006. A Postcapitalist Politics. University Of Minnesota Press. Gibson-Graham, J. K. and Gerda. Roelvink. 2011. The nitty gritty of creating alternative economies. Social Alternatives, Vol. 30, Number 1, 2011, pp. 29-33 Gibson-Graham, J.K. 2014. Rethinking the economy with thick description and weak theory. Current Anthropology. Vol 55 (9):S147-S153 Graeber, David. 2013. The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement. Spiegel & Grau Guehenno, JM. 2000. The End of the Nation-state. University of Minnesota Press. Illich, Ivan. 2009[1981]. Vernacular values. In Shadow Work. Marion Boyars Press. Ince, A. 2012. In the shell of the old: Anarchist geographies of territorialisation. Antipode. Vol 44(5):1645-1666. Hewitt, Kenneth. 2001. “Between Pinochet and Kropotkin: State Terror, Human Rights and the Geographers.” Canadian Geographer / Le Géographe Canadien 45 (3): 338–355. Kropotkin, Piotr. 1897. The State, its historic role. The Anarchist Library. La Jornada. 2012. Van 150 mil muertos en México por la narcoviolencia: Panetta. La Jornada. http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2012/03/28/politica/005n1pol (accessed 7 de Marzo, 2015). Latour, Bruno. 2015. Modernity is a politically dangerous goal. https://enverdeseo.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/bruno-latour-modernity-is-politically-a-dangerous-goal/ Livingstone, David. 1993. The Geographical Tradition: Episodes in the History of a Contested Enterprise. Wiley Press. Lopes de Souza, Marcelo. 2014. Towards a libertarian turn? Notes on the past and future of radical urban research and praxis. City. Vol. 18 2:104-118. Marx, Karl. 1990 [1867]. Capital Volume 1. Penguin Classics. Mignolo, Walter. 1999. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press Mignolo, W. 2009. Epistemic Disobedience, Independent Thought and Decolonial Freedom. Theory, Culture & Society Vol. 26(7–8): 159–181 Mitchell, Timothy. 2002. Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, and Modernity. Los Angeles: University of California Press Mol, Annemarie. 2002. The Body Multiple. Duke University Press. Mol, Annemarie. 2008. The logic of care. Taylor & Francis e-Library Polanyi, Karl. 2001[1944]. The Great Transformation. Beacon Press. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996), ‘The new governance: governing without government’, Political Studies 46: 652–67. Rosenau, James N. (1995), ‘Governance in the twenty-first century’, Global Governance 1; 13–43. Said, Edward. 2003 [1978]. Orientalism. Penguin Books. Scott, J.C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak. Yale University Scott, JC. 2007. Seeing like a state. Yale University Press. Scott, J.C. 2009. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press Scott, J.C. 2012. Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play. Princeton University Press Seymour, Michel. 2004. The Fate of the Nation-state. McGill University Press. Sedgwick, E.K. (2003). Touching Feeling Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Sousa Santos, Bonaventura. 2006. The Heterogeneous State and Legal Pluralism in Mozambique. Law & Society Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 39-7 Sousa Santos, Bonaventura. 2007. Beyond abyssal thinking: from global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review. Vol. 1 Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 2010. Introduction. In Clastres, Pierre. Archeology of Violence. Semiotext(e). Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1992. Liberalism and the Legitimation of Nation-States: An Historical Interpretation. Social Justice: a Journal of Crime, Conflict and World Order 19:1 White, R.J. and Williams, C.C. Anarchist economic practices in a 'capitalist' society: some implications for organisation and the future of work. Ephemera, theory and politics in organization. Vol 14 4: 951975 Wright, Sarah. 2015. More-than-human, emergent belongings: A weak theory approach. Progress in Human Geography, Vol 39 4:391-411 Zibechi, Raul. 2010. Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces. AK Press. iAnarchism is not alone in privileging horizontality, rather the Diverse Economies Framework, Weak Theory, some aspects of decoloniality, various currents in Science and Technology Studies among others also strive to examine ideas beyond the lens of hierarchy. iiHere Clastres refers to the thought ofLa Boetie. iiiAnderson may not have been aware of Illich's work at the time of writing Imagined Communities for he is nowhere mentioned in the bibliography and no reference to Nebrija is made in the text, however, Illich's work in Vernacular Values would have also supported Anderson's chapter, Origins of National Conciousness in Imagined Communties. ivHere I use collective community construction to move beyond the development framework. v  Following the astute analysis ofKropotkin (1897:32); “The State cannot recognize a freely-formed union operating within itself; it only recognizes subjects. The State and its sister the Church arrogate to themselves alone the right to serve as the link between men. Consequently, the State must, perforce, wipe out cities based on the direct union between citizens. It must abolish all unions within the city, as well as the city itself, and wipe out all direct union between the cities. For the federal principle it must substitute the principle of submission and discipline. Such is the stuff of the State, for without this principle it ceases to be State.” viFor more information see, http://www.communityeconomies.org/Home/Key-Ideas viiPers. Comm. Lopes de Souza, 9/27/15 viiiSource: http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/poblacion/asistencia.aspx?tema=P 

DRAFT Theories of Resistance DRAFT Transforming Capitalism Series Editors: Ian Bruff, University of Manchester; Julie Cupples, University of Edinburgh; Gemma Edwards, University of Manchester; Laura Horn, University of Roskilde; Simon Springer, University of Victoria; Jacqui True, Monash University This book series provides an open platform for the publication of path-breaking and interdisciplinary scholarship which seeks to understand and critique capitalism along four key lines: crisis, development, inequality, and resistance. At its core lies the assumption that the world is in various states of transformation, and that these transformations may build upon earlier paths of change and conflict while also potentially producing new forms of crisis, development, inequality, and resistance. Through this approach the series alerts us to how capitalism is always evolving and hints at how we could also transform capitalism itself through our own actions. It is rooted in the vibrant, broad and pluralistic debates spanning a range of approaches which are being practised in a number of fields and disciplines. As such, it will appeal to sociology, geography, cultural studies, international studies, development, social theory, politics, labour and welfare studies, economics, anthropology, law, and more. Titles in the Series The Radicalization of Pedagogy: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt, edited by Simon Springer, Marcelo Lopes de Souza, and Richard J. White Theories of Resistance: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt, edited by Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Richard J. White, and Simon Springer The Practice of Freedom: Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt, edited by Richard J. White, Simon Springer, and Marcelo Lopes de Souza States of Discipline: Authoritarian Neoliberalism and the Crises of Capitalism, edited by Cemal Burak Tansel A Sense of Inequality, Wendy Bottero DRAFT Theories of Resistance Anarchism, Geography, and the Spirit of Revolt Edited by Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Richard J. White, and Simon Springer London • New York DRAFT Published by Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB www.rowmaninternational.com Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd. is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada), and London (UK) www.rowman.com Selection and editorial matter © 2016 by Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Richard J. White, and Simon Springer Copyright in individual chapters is held by the respective chapter authors. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: HB 978-1-78348-666-3 ISBN: PB 978-1-78348-667-0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Christie, Jane L. Title: Negotiating gendered discourses : Michelle Bachelet and Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner / Jane L. Christie. Description: Lanham : Lexington Books, 2015. | Series: Latin American gender and sexualities | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015034023| ISBN 9781498512343 (cloth : alkaline paper) | ISBN 9781498512350 (electronic) Subjects: LCSH: Bachelet, Michelle, 1951- | Fernandez de Kirchner, Cristina. | Women presidents-Chile--Biography. | Women presidents--Argentina--Biography. | Women--Political activity-Chile. | Women--Political activity--Argentina. | Human rights--Chile. | Human rights--Argentina. | Chile--Politics and government--1988- | Argentina--Politics and government--2002Classification: LCC F3101.4.B33 C47 2015 | DDC 320.0820983--dc23 LC record available at http:// lccn.loc.gov/2015034023 TM The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992. Printed in the United States of America DRAFT For the rebels of the earth—may you use the power of words, and may those words help change the world. DRAFT DRAFT Contents Acknowledgements ix Introduction: Subverting the Meaning of ‘Theory’ Marcelo Lopes de Souza, Richard J. White, and Simon Springer 1 1 ‘Libertarian,’ Libertaire, Libertario . . . : Conceptual Construction and Cultural Diversity (and Vice Versa) Marcelo Lopes de Souza 2 Non-Domination, Governmentality and the Care of the Self Nathan Eisenstadt 3 Post-Statist Epistemology and the Future of Geographical Knowledge Production Gerónimo Barrera de la Torre and Anthony Ince 4 What Do We Resist When We Resist the State? Erin Araujo 5 Towards a Theory of ‘Commonisation’ Nick Clare and Victoria Habermehl 6 ‘Feuding Brothers?’: Left-Libertarians, Marxists and SocioSpatial Research at the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century Marcelo Lopes de Souza 7 The Citizen and the Nomad: Bookchin and Bey on Space and Temporality Benjamin J. Pauli 8 Swimming Against the Current: Towards an Anti-Colonial Anarchism in British Columbia, Canada Vanessa Sloan Morgan 19 27 51 79 101 123 153 175 DRAFT Contents 9 Anarchy, Space, and Indigenous Resistance: Developing AntiColonial and Decolonizing Commitments in Anarchist Theory and Practice Adam Gary Lewis 10 Celebrating the Invasive: The Hidden Pleasures and Political Promise of the Unwanted Nick Garside About the Contributors 203 233 249